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, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan. Per the undisputed facts below!
The County of San Luis Obispo in their "Answer To Petition For Review" by Thomas L. Riordon, SBN 104827 shows the Supreme Court why this review is necessary as the County explains on P. 5 "The Oceano Community Service District (District) owns a water well. From time to time, the well discharges water into the drainage channel that leads to the culvert under the rail bed. (RT Vol. 5:1265-1266)"
The County LIES about Testomony by Dan Sutton from POVE as Dan had stated 02-03 NOT 2000! The County mentions the Davis daily logs(exhibit #1768) that shows No Date of Stabilization!
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!"
THE SECOND APPELLATE COURT OF APPEAL OPINION IS INCONSISTENT WITH EXISTING CALIFORNIA PRECEDENT AND DOES REQUIRE A NEW TRIAL!
PLEASE REVIEW THE VIDEO PRESENTED TO JUDGE MARTIN J. TANGEMAN OF OCSD DISCHARGE FROM WELL # 8 PER EXHIBITS # 1768 AND # 579! THIS ACTION GOES AGAINST RECENT CALIFORNIA CASE LAW "SKOUMBAS V. CITY OF ORINDA"
The County has shown, that the County, OCSD and Caltrans have "EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL" over this storm water drainage channel!
Please watch Caltrans Gradeing and Shoveling Contamination and debris into the Oceano Communities storm water drainage channel leading to our Pacific Ocean!
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan do not view the 500 photos and videos presented to them and Judge Martin J. Tangeman of Caltrans Raising State Highway 1 and then Grading and Shoveling Debris and Contamination into the Oceano Storm water drainage system, while the Oceano Community Service District dredges 2500 gallons of debris and well water into this system daily as a cause of the flooding of our State Highway 1!
Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan State:
"Bookout points to no findings of fact in his favor. Instead, he relies on over 500 photographs and videos showing the flooding, several hundred documents which he claims show each defendant exercised dominion and control over the drainage facilities, and the testimony of his expert engineer, Keith Crow. He believes the evidence against the defendants was overwhelming.
Bookout claims the evidence is credible because it is uncontradicted. He cites Joseph v. Drew (1950) 36 Cal.2d 575, 579, for the proposition that uncontradicted testimony of a witness may not be disregarded, but should be accepted as proof of the fact to which the witness testified. Indeed, there are no doubt cases where the uncontradicted testimony of a witness is so credible that no reasonable trier of fact could reject it. But this is not such a case.
Here there is an obvious cause of the flooding. The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees."
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan are fully aware of Judge Martin J. Tangemans exhibits/statements in his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision on P. 7 per photo exhibits # 1278-1337 and 1338 of this OCSD pipe directly inside the Railroad Culvert! They now allow Government to block and dam storm water drainage systems as seen in these exhibit photos! Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...
Being an elected OCSD Director--Whistle blower in California.
The Second Appellate Court States having seen these videos: "Here there is an obvious cause of the flooding. The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees." This statement is incorrect as seen in the OCSD discharge into this storm water drainage system!
Loading...
5:37
David's Adoptionby jimpaparella607 views
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 1 year ago
The County of San Luis Obispo in their “Answer To Petition For Review” by Thomas L. Riordon, SBN 104827 shows the Supreme Court why the review was necessary as the County explains on P. 5 “The Oceano Community Service District (District) owns a water well. From time to time, the well discharges water into the drainage channel that leads to the culvert under the rail bed. (RT Vol. 5:1265-1266)”
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago
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!
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago
The Second Appellate Court does not find an (Abuse of Discretion) in their July 28, 2010 published decision P. 6 and 7 or, that it is a Prejudicial Error for the County of San Luis Obispo-or Union Pacific Railroad to withhold 150 Oceano/County whiteness-plus photo/Questionnaires/ documents from discovery until after trial July 30, 2008!
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago