Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justice Ming W. Chin

Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, The California Supreme Court has ruled October 27, 2010 that the actions by Government in this video are legal in the California published case law Decision Bookou v. State of California.

This case and the actions by the County of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans and OCSD are now seen at www.unitedstatessupremecourt.net Please review the PDF file of the County of San Luis Obispo trying to make a deal!

The Second Appellate Court acknowledges governments actions as seen in these videos for America to see!

It is unfortunate that I am having to make the videos presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman in the now California Case Law Decision Bookout v. State of California public!

The flooding of our State Highway 1 in the town of Oceano California is not 100% the fault of POVE as seen in the evidence presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman.

Exhibits Recieved by Judge Martin J. Tangeman showing no Date of Stabilization and that Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange is not responsible for the flooding of State Highway 1! OCSD 1983 Letter-1985 Construction--Caltrans $5,000.00 Agreement--Caltrans $42,295.00 fix! Judge Martin J. Tangeman No Date of Stabilization per exhibits recieved by Judge Martin J. Tangeman PDF... Cal Coast News-Karin Velie--New Times Ryan Miller National News Story for being a Government Whistle Blower! NBC News, ABC News, Fox News, CBS News

The County of San Luis Obispo September 20, 2010 in their "Answer To Petition For Review" by Thomas L. Riordon, SBN 104827 on Page 13 ignores evidence presented to Judge Tangeman showing that the County Required POVE to raise the outlet of the retention pond used by Caltrans, County and OCSD! The County on P. 12 ignores photo evidence showing the POVE/Railroad pond in 1958 and 1967 instead of the County's statement to the California Supreme Court Justices. "The trial court heard and weighed all testomony and concluded that the sole legal cause of the flooding was the poorly designed junction box and drainage pond built on Exchange property during the 1970's. (AA 13:345-346)" How is it that the trial court did not have to pay attention to the Evidence!

The County of San Luis Obispo acknowledges "No Date Of Stabilization" the construction permitted in the drainage channel by the County, allowing the OCSD Well # 8 discharge Pipe installed into this drainage culvert! (Per Davis Testimony!) The County States: "Davis's daily log for that year makes referance to a meeting with Bookout on December 20, 2002. (RT Vol. 2:402) Bookout took a picture of the pipe going into the drainage channel in the aftermath of a rain event in 2002." The County States: "The picture included a District employee. (RT Vol. 2:403) This photo shows No Date of Stabilization and that OCSD and Caltrans had not properly corrected the complaint in Exhibit # 579! Thus showing that the partial use of Exhibit # 579 was a predjudicial Error in now California Case Law "Bookout v. State of California!"

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Elena Kagan
• Associate Justice Ming W. Chin
• Inverse Condemnation
• Caltrans
• Flooding
• RWQCB
• Storm Water
• Pollution
• Pacific Ocean
• Constitution
• Supreme Court

[InverseCondemnation1]

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Why would the California Supreme Court allow this California State Highway to flood, knowing how the Oceano Community Service District testified to their daily discharge of Well # 8 water and debris into this storm water drainage system?

Why is Exhibit # 1756 a cause of the flooding of our State Highway?

[InverseCondemnation1]

In Bookout v. State Of California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter belive that this use of a California storm water drainage system is permanent!

Will the new California case law "Bookout V. State of California" end public safety?

[InverseCondemnation1]

The United States Supreme Court will have to decide California (Cal. Rules of Court, rul 8.500(b)(1).) and (Cal.Rules of Court, rule8.1105.) in order to decide if California Government can actually use storm water drainage systems for other use then storm water!

The second Appellate Court in their California case law decision talk about this use and the videos presented to them showing the department of Transportation use of this drainage system!