Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 68 DATED 25FEB21

FEBUARY 25, 2021 LOUIS E. GUENIOT TEAM MANAGER GORDON LIU CLAIM SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020 STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 67 DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2021 09:03AM NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 68. NUMBER 1.  MR. GUENIOT, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE AN EDUCATED MAN AND YOU ARE NOT DUMB, PLEASE PARDON ME FOR THE WORD BUT I AM FORCED TO WRITE ITIN ACCOUNT OF YOUR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL IDIOCY AND MALEVOLENCE.   THE ASSISTANCE BEING SOUGHT IS,  PLEASE PROVIDE ME A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. WHY DO YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER? 1. Your denial letter must be accurate and not confusing. FIRST, State Farm had an affirmed denial letter dated July 17, 2020. On paragraph 3 of this letter, Mr. Gordon Liu wrote the following: "In your request that our correspondences be re-organized and re-written, we respectfully respond that we will not. Please refer to May 6, 2020                      correspondence and specifically the one year suit against us paragraph. The  one year cited begins again as of the date of this letter." Meaning, according to Mr. Liu, the one year suit begins again as of the date of that letter, July 17, 2020 and not June 12, 2020 as in your response dated February 11, 11, 20121. Kindly write your facts clear. SECOND, State Farm confused us by writing contradictory statement of facts pertaining to the report of his plumber informant, Titouah.  ON PAR.2 June 12, 2020 DENIAL LETTER, Mr. Liu wrote, "As outlined in our May 6, 2020 declination letter, the predominant cause of the water damages was wear, tear, and deterioration to the forty one year old "hot" side copper water line located under the concrete foundation which resulted in a continuous and repeated seepage of water below the foundation, eventually migrated upwards and manifested itself on the date of the discovery to the interior of the home. My virtual inspection on May 5, 2020, the photographs of the excavating of the pipe, multiple discussions with All Express Plumbing, his written report and a detailed follow up conversation with the plumber, John Titouah on June 5, 2020 confirmed all the original facts of the loss." "his written report  " This means on the denial letter dated June 12, 2020, Mr. Liu impressed upon us a copy of the written report of JOHN TITOUAH. BUT HOW COME MR. LIU IS DENYING  THE EXISTENCE OF JOHN TITOUAH's REPORT ON PAR.3 JULY 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY JOHN TITOUAH WAS PROVIDED VERBALLY AND NOT IN WRITTEN FORM.   PAR. 3 July 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER Mr. Liu wrote, "Attached is a copy of the photo media sheet with the photographs obtained during our virtual Claims Xperience inspection which took place on May 5, 2020. The information provided by John Titouah was provided verbally and not in a written form. The information contained in our claim file notes are not considered claim-related documents, as defined by Insurance Code Section 10082.3 and will not be provided." Again, kindly clear the conflicting contrary position on the report of your plumber informant, Please be clear. Did your plumber informant, Titouah, give you a written report? THIRD, State Farm confused us regarding the depth of excavation done by Titouah.   On May 6, 2020 denial letter paragraph 3, Mr. Liu wrote ten (10) inches depth of excavation. On June 12, 2020 denial letter paragraph 3, Mr. Liu wrote eight (8) to nine (9) inches depth of excavation. On July 13, 2020 denial letter paragraph 3, Mr. Liu wrote depth of the excavation is more than eight (8) inches below the concrete slab.   Mr. Liu misrepresented facts about my confirmation of the depth of the excavation be more than eight inches below the concrete slab. On this Video 1 which I showed to Mr. Liu and he had admitted to have seen, I have clearly explained to him that the maximum depth which his informant, Titouah, excavated is not 10, nor 9, nor 8 inches but only 6 inches. How could I have to confirmed his misrepresentation where I actually have shown him the actual depth on Video 1 and he personally seen the depth of the excavation of 6 inches? See Video 1 screenshot. Now, you may come to the site again and and 12-inches ruler and take actual depth measurements of the excavation to settle this fact. I have preserved the excavation for your continuing investigation. If you refused or failed to come and investigate, then on record this is the second time you refused to take the actual measurement, a couple of manifestations of deliberate refusal to correctly investigate issues presented in our claim to confirm the true facts contrary to the facts you presented in your denial letters.  Then, the actual maximum depth of excavation which I took at 6 inches shall prevail over hearsay and false 8 or 9 or 10 inches from your informant, Titouah. SCREENSHOT OF THE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF EXCAVATION FROM VIDEO 1 FOURTH, State Farm utilizes misleading statements by first, writing a true fact then joining it with false observation with the intention to make us believe that since his first statement is true, then we would think that statement next to it appears to be true. One example of this misleading statement is shown next: On June 12, 2020 denial letter paragraph 3, last sentence, Mr. Liu wrote: "The location of the break on the hot side is definitive at this point as there are no vertical risers in the middle of the floor and the plumber substantiated beyond a doubt the location of the broken pipe and the fact is was below the concrete foundation." He wrote the first sentence this way:  "The location of the pipe break is definitive at this point as there are no vertical risers in the middle of the floor........." This is absolutely a true statement. I will not argue with you on this. No one would ever think to live in house designed with the hot and cold vertical risers in the middle of the floor. Show me a house constructed this way, Mr. Gueniot? This is a faulty architectural and engineering design and ridiculous and absurd application of a statement of a true fact. The vertical risers are designed to be located not on the center but on the side of the flooring as where it is located in the side of the hallway of our house which Mr. Liu  ridiculously not abled to mention though he actually saw it when examining the newly re-routed hot water lines above the excavated concrete slab. And worse, he impliedly denied the existence of it. Then, Mr. Liu connected a false information next to that premise as if he wanted to for us to believe is actually true : ".... and the plumber substantiated beyond a doubt the location of the broken pipe and the fact is was below the concrete foundation." This follow up information by Mr. Liu is untrue as I have substantiated a comprehensive evidence of its falsity shown next. 2. Your denial letter must contain of statement of facts based on concrete evidence not from hearsay and conjectures. Like my concrete proof of the exact location of the pipe break and instruction by First American how to repair it. Please compare my evidence PICTURE 1 against your hearsay statements and conjectures. PICTURE F1 ENLARGED WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2020 MESSAGE FROM FIRST AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY SAYING THE CORRECTION TO THE PROBLEM  IS TO ACCESS PIPE ENCASED IN CONCRETE SLAB AND REPAIR PIPE AND NOT TO EXCAVATE LEAKING PIPE UNDER THE FOUNDATION.  THOUGH I HAVE NOT SEEN  JOHN TITOUAH, THE PLUMBER,  REPORT ON WHERE THE LEAK IS,  BY VIRTUE OF THIS MESSAGE, IT CAN BE INFERRED WITH 100%ACCURACY THAT THE LEAK IS NOT UNDER THE FOUNDATION BUT IN THE PIPE ENCASED IN THE SLAB AS INFORMED AND INSTRUCTED AND ADVISED BY FIRST AMERICAN. Claim Number 55-06c6-44x THIRTY-FOUR (34) COUNTS OF AGGRAVATING BAD FAITH EVIDENCES AGAINST STATE FARM/GORDON LIU 3.  As I have mentioned  vandalism and as I have reiterated, please write a clear denial letter on my claim on vandalism which coverage I discovered just only on November 4, 2020 when you belatedly furnished me with a copy of the policy which I requested far beyond what is required by the regulation. 4. On your responses email dated February 11, 2021 and February 25, 2021, paragraph 4 where you wrote, "Your email contains allegations of misconduct. All such contentions are denied. You should not interpret our silence as any agreement with you, or any waiver of our rights under the policy or law.  We reserve all rights under the policy and the law." Mr. Gueniot,  this paragraph is no longer credible because I have shown and laid out well crafted  premises of factual events through email communications which prove the  conclusion that when you think you have a valid argument to contradict my accusation you break your silence and respond in comprehensive details immediately and when you do not have any, you merely remained silent and responded through this waiver, paragraph 4. THIS WAIVER, MR. GUENIOT, IS INDEFENSIBLE, SPINELESS, RIDICULOUS AND I AM CATEGORICALLY RAISING MY OBJECTION TO IT AS YOU APPLIED THIS WAIVER BEFORE AND TO OTHER UNSUBSTANTIATED STATEMENT OF DENIALS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.  My proof is your response email dated 13Nov2020 shown in the link next: STATE FARM EVIDENCE OF BREAKING SILENCE WHEN HAVING A VALID ARGUMENT DATED 13NOV20 4:00PM MR. GUENIOT BEAR IN MIND THIS CONTINUING REMINDER: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM  ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS  OF SECTION 2695.5.  Section 2695.5. Duties upon Receipt of Communications (b) Upon receiving any communication from a claimant, regarding a claim, that reasonably suggests that a response is expected, every licensee shall immediately, but in no event more than fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of that communication, furnish the claimant with a complete response based on the facts as then known by the licensee. This subsection shall not apply to require communication with a claimant subsequent to receipt by the licensee of a notice of legal action by that claimant. NUMBER 2.  DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO AN EMAIL ASKING FOR A CLEAR AND CONCISE DENIAL LETTER LIKE "As I previously communicated to you on November 13, 2020, we have done our best to answer your questions and provide a reasonable explanation for the basis of the denial of the claim based on the policy language. " WHERE IN YOUR EMAIL IN NOVEMBER 13, 2020 YOU PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION? YOU  DID NOT EVEN MENTION OF MY DAMAGES CLAIM FROM VANDALISM COMMITTED BY YOUR INFORMANT PLUMBER TITOUAH? NUMBER 3.  YOU ARE SAYING "we have done our best" WHAT EFFORTS HAVE YOU MADE TO EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION? WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN ME ARE JUST A TEMPLATE OF EMPTY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED FIVE (5), THREE (3) OR LESSER FEEBLE MINDED OR FEW INSANE SENTENCES, REPEATEDLY ALL OVER AGAIN. WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BEST IS TO SOW MORE AND MORE CONFUSIONS AND FRIVOLOUS DELAY TO DETER ME CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU. BUT I ASSURE YOU, I WILL CONTINUE GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU THOUGH YOU CONTINUALLY DISPLAY OBVIOUS, OUTRAGEOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE MANIFESTATIONS OF BAD FAITH. NUMBER 4.  MR. GUENIOT , PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT TOWARD A HOLISTIC RESOLUTION. THIS EMAIL : Claim Number 55-06c6-44x REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE STATE FARM INSURANCE AGENT DATED 29DEC20 2:37PM WHICH YOU RUDELY RESPONDED TO IS ADDRESSED TO MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY AND NOT FOR YOU TO ANSWER. I FURNISHED YOU A COPY OF IT FOR THE SAKE OF COURTESY JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM PRUDENTLY EXPLORING OPTIONS TO NEGOTIATE THESE INSURANCE CLAIMS BETWEEN RESPECTABLE AND HONORABLE MEN. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY DESERVES MEN OF HIGH HONOR AND INTEGRITY IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING. PLEASE LET MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY DO WHATEVER HE COULD TO HELP US OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT. INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 68 REPEATED MISCONDUCTS FROM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES MULTIPLE MISCONDUCTS  1 TO 8 AND 9/10/11/12/13 AND 14 AND 15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24/25/26/27/28/29/30/31/32/33/34/35/36 AND 37/38/39/40/41/42/43/44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52/53/54/55/56/57/58/59/62/63/64/65/66/67 BEING NOT DISPUTED, OBJECTED AND HABITUALLY REPEATED WITH IMPUNITY.  HENCE, PROVEN TO BE INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS, WILLFUL, WANTON, OPPRESSIVE AND OUTRAGEOUS AND BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Dear Messrs Gueniot and Liu: PLEASE SEE, As Mr. Gueniot responded to email as shown next: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 67 DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2021 11:38PM NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 68 SHOWN ABOVE. THIS SHOWS: EVIDENCE OF THE 68TH RECORDED MISCONDUCT, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF, REPEATED HABITUALLY,  INTENTIONALLY,  DELIBERATELY OF OUTRAGEOUS  MISCONDUCTS RESPONDING TO EMAILS SUBJECT OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION AND/OR RESPONDING TO EMAILS NOT ADDRESSED TO HIM TO RESPOND AND/OR RESPONDING TO SEVERAL EMAILS ONCE LEAVING OTHER EMAILS NOT RESPONDED AND VIOLATION OF DUTIES UPON RECEIPT OF COMMUNICATION SECTION 2695. HE HAD SHOWN A TOTAL OF SIXTY EIGHT (68) RECORDED INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES AND/OR MISCONDUCTS TO SOW CONFUSION AND INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY DERAIL AND DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, AGAIN, HIS  INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 68,  THOUGH WORTHLESS  SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CONTENTS ARE NOT RELATED TO THE QUESTION POSTED FOR HIM TO ADDRESS AND/OR OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION AND/OR PROFESSIONALLY DISRESPECTFUL RESPONSE BUT BECOME A BIG HELP TO BOLSTER MANIFESTATION OF BAD FAITH CLAIM AGAINST STATE FARM. YOUR ACTIONS, MR. GUENIOT TEND TO SHOW  THAT YOU MIGHT BE THE REAL MASTERMIND OF  TITOUAH'S CRIMES. SO, MR. GUENIOT, AGAIN, MAY I REQUEST FOR YOUR KIND UNDERSTANDING. WE NEED TO HAVE OUR NEGOTIATION ORGANIZED AND RECORDS CLEAR,  SO THAT WE MAY AVOID CONFUSION. OBVIOUSLY, IT APPEARS THAT YOU WANTED MUCH EAGERLY TO CLOSE THE NEGOTIATION AND THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS. HOWEVER, YOUR EFFORTS ARE IN VAIN AS I SEE YOUR INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES NOW ARE WANING TO ONLY FEW OR FIVE (5) OR THREE (3) WEAK,  OR TWO (2) SENILE FEEBLE AND DESPICABLE PARAGRAPHS AND THUS, SIMPLY THIS FACT LEAD ME TO THINK YOU  REALLY JUST WANTED TO AVOID QUESTIONS, WHICH ANSWERS OR NO ANSWER FROM YOU TEND TO SPILL THE BEANS OF MOST PROBABLY TITOUAH AND YOUR CRIMES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM SIMPLY BY READING THE QUERIES SPECIALLY CRAFTED FOR YOU, WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR ANSWERS. Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail. THIS EMAIL RESPONSE IS INTENDED FOR YOUR  COLLECTION OF NEW INFORMATION ON INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES WHICH TO MY TALLY RIGHT NOW ROSE TO 68.  IN OTHER WORDS,  SIXTY EIGHT (68) COUNTS OF STATE FARM RECORDED MISCONDUCTS. THOSE UNRECORDED MISCONDUCTS, I AM STILL COLLECTING THEM AND I PROMISE I WILL ADD THEM TO THE LIST WHICH INFORMATION YOU MAY STILL WANTED TO KNOW. MOREOVER, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE REFUGE ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS A LEGAL DEFENSE TO DISCOURAGE ME IN PURSUING GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY INFORM YOU THAT IN ACCOUNT OF YOUR UNABATED CONTINUING VIOLATION IN MULTIPLE WRONGFUL ACTS, FAILURES TO ACT, OR DECISIONS SUCH THAT THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN ON THIS COLLECTED MALFEASANCE ONLY WHEN THE DEFENDANT, YOU MR. GUENIOT, CEASES YOUR IMPROPER CONDUCT. SINCE YOU HAVE NOT STOPPED YOUR IMPROPER CONDUCT; HENCE, THE ONE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD TO FILE SUIT AGAINST STATE FARM HAS NOT BEEN STARTED YET.  PLEASE RESTRICT ISSUES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO AVOID INAPPROPRIATENESS AND CONFUSION. PLEASE NOTE THAT  WRITING A LOUSY REPLY TAKEN BASED FROM A TEMPLATE JUST A FEW MINUTES OR HOURS OR FOURTEEN (14) DAYS TO DEVIATE ATTENTION FROM WHAT YOU ARE PROVEN YOU ARE HABITUALLY DOING.  SO IT WON'T MATTER ANYMORE, WHETHER IT TOOK YOU A FEW MINUTES OR HOURS OR FOURTEEN (14) DAYS BECAUSE  IT DID NOT ERASE NOR BLEMISH THE ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THE MAY 6, 2020 DENIAL LETTER WAS RELAYED AND SENT TO US IN A FEW MINUTES IS ABSOLUTELY PART OF YOUR PLAN CONCEIVED AND PREPARED MANY DAYS IN ADVANCE. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso

MANILA BAY DREDGING TO BEGIN IN MARCH

BEACH RECLAMATION (REFERENCE)

Beach Reclamation SOURCE  :  http://www2.gsu.edu/~mstnrhx/EnviroBio%20Projects/Beachfront/reclamation.html What is beach reclamation? Beach reclamation is the act of reclaiming a beach from erosion.  In other words sand is added to the area that was lost to erosion "reclaiming" the shoreline that once was.  Reclamation does not just occur on ocean beaches but any beach or shoreline that is subject to severe erosion. How is it done? Beach reclamation is often done through a process called dredging. Dredging is the process of scooping from the bottom of a water source a material. You may have heard of dredging when a person has drowned. Police dredge or take a device along the bottom of the body of water in an effort to locate the body of the victim.  However, in beach reclamation the material retrieved is sand.  The use of a vacuum-like device is often used in areas like lakes and rivers to obtain the sand. Once the sand is obtained, it is deposited at the site. Sand is either directly applied or the sand that has been gathered is cleaned through a heat process and then deposited.  The sand extends the shoreline to its orginal borders or extends the beach farther into the body of water it is adjacent to. Below is an example of dredging from the Dredge and Dock Company Site. They contract under the Army Corps of Engineers for beach replenishment. Sand siphoned up from the ocean floor, being deposited in one of the hoppers of the Dredge Long Island With all the hoppers full, the Dredge Long Island heads towards the beach bringing sand from distant borrow areas. This dredge has a capacity of over 16,000 cubic yards of sand and can pump sand ashore from a buoy located off the beach. In the background the Hopper Dredge Long Island, hooked up to a buoy, pumps a slurry mixture of sand and water ashore through a half mile of 27" diameter pipe. Prior to beach replenishment the shoreline encroaches very near the boardwalk putting it in danger from coastal storms. After beach renourishment, the shoreline is located further away from existing structures, protecting them from damage caused by coastal storms as well as providing a clean recreation area on the beach. Why is it done? The purpose of beach reclamation is to protect development properties from storm damage, extend beaches for public use, and to re-establish sand bars (also protection from storms).  Without an adequate barrier between large bodies of water like oceans, beachfront properties are at risk from storms and erosion.  The owners of these properties have a lot invested in their buildings and businesses and do not want to have them destroyed by high tides, hurricanes, or pounding waves caused by sea storms.  Some sand bars that protected areas like the Barrier Islands of South Carolina as well as the islands themselves are subject to severe erosion and are the "speed breakers" of storms coming inland. When these are destroyed by erosion there is nothing to protect the properties inland.  Reclamation becomes a source of replacing the "speed breakers" and dredging is the most common means to replace them. What Problems Are Involved in Dredging? One problem with dredging is the cost.  The cost is on-going just as the erosion is on-going. Dredging does not stop erosion. It just adds more sand to erode.  In some cases, dredging has cost communities up to 90 million dollars in total costs! The cost often exceeds the possible benefits of the beach nourishment. Another problem is habitat destruction.  When sand is added, it is not often done with consideration of the plants and animals that exist on the beach.  It is like putting a sandbox in a yard. The plants and animals can often be smothered by the sand. The other aspect of habitat destruction is dredging takes animals and plant life from the bottom of the body of water being used to retrieve sand. The act itself is destructive to coral and other animals that may use the area for feeding, breeding, or living purposes. Dredging also changes the face of the area sand is gathered from. The change in the geography could very well cause erosion in other areas because it shifts the way the land lies. Extending beaches into a body of water may also cause harm in that as more land becomes available people extend with it. The land extensions are often not stable. The land has a tendency to shift, flood, or sink without notice as pockets fill in or nature tries its own form of reclamation. Are There Other Methods? According to Holmberg Technologies, their method is the best. It promotes natural beach nourishment or reclamation. Their method is best described in the article from their site: "Undercurrent Stabilizer Technology neutralizes the impacts dredged channels have on sandy beaches. This has proven to routinely reverse unnatural erosion. The technology consists of modular, hydrodynamically shaped forms which are cast in place on the nearshore seabed, generally at right angles to the shoreline. Problems normally associated with erosion control structures are avoided through tapered, low-relief shaping, special landward tie-backs and patented filter fabric foundations. The low-profile, flow-through array (sometimes simply called "speed bumps") progressively baffles unnatural nearshore turbulence, allowing sand to fall out of suspension in quieted waters within and adjacent to the treated area. Local shoaling progressively decreases remaining nearshore turbulence (beyond decreases induced by the system itself). As the nearshore progressively shallows out in response to the accretion template, less and less wave and current energy is supported to drive arriving sand from the treated area. Upon treatment, unnatural erosion ceases and resedimentation begins, often with surprising speed. The accretion template itself is generally buried by rising sand levels as the nearshore beach profile becomes inherently accretional. Adjacent shorelines benefit because an unbounded feeder beach is established. A long-term university study of numerous installations concludes: 'Consistent profile volume gain measured in the vicinity of the Undercurrent Stabilizer system (relative to a regional trend of profile volume loss) plus significant foreshore/backshore beach accretion with no apparent negative impact down drift must be viewed as success in almost any context'" (Holmberg Technologies 1999). Graphics from the same site show how their product works in reestablishing beaches. They say their product is longer lasting at a lower cost than dredging.  Some communities in Texas and Florida have opted for this type of beach reclamation. Problems associated with type of reclamation are erosion of downdrift beaches and creation of rip currents that are hazardous to swimmers. There does not seem to be much documentation to support any other problems. Yet, one still has to wonder about habitat destruction with the implementation of this technology into the water. With beach reclamation, there seems to be no easy answers. Maybe you can come up with an environmentally friendly way to save the beaches and protect the developments as well.

651ST PERSUASIVE APPEAL_22FEB19_TO THE SCP JUSTICIDES_ SYNDICATED SWINDLERS FROM SHELL MOTTO, "FOLLOWING THE LAW IS OPTIONAL"

1 CERTIFICATE OF SEPARATION FROM LAST EMPLOYER COMPLAINT 2.  MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED  RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL                          SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA 796counts SEE BELOW FOR THE 796TH   TIME THE REITERATION OF DEMAND PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY WHICH SHELL REFUSED TO HONOR IN THE PRESENCE AND DEEMED APPROVAL OF THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES GEUS_15MAR16_66th FOLLOW UP_REITERATION OF DEMAND  PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight... Proverbs Chapter 11  v. 1 Retirement Pay Law circumvented by Shell subject to penal provision provided for by Article 288 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.