Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno

Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.

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!

How does Exhibits # 1278, 1337 and 1338 talked about by Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney and Judge Martin J.Tangeman make this flooding of State Highway 1 the fault of POVE 100%? How is this flooding of our California State Highway Stable and Static since the late 1970's? Both Judge Tangeman and Judge Mullaney acknowledge this OCSD Well # 8 debris pipe constructed inside this storm water drainage channel showing no "Date Of Stabilization" per exhibits #1768, 579 and 1756!

The Second Appellate Court Justices--Arthur Gilbert, Steven Z. Perren, and Kenneth R. Yegan ignore in their July 28, 2010 published California Case Law decision Bookout v. State of California--- Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. "We conclude the critical inquiry is not whether the entire system was a public improvement, but rather whether the City acted reasonably in its maintenance and control over those portions of the drainage system it does own." "Substantial cause-and-effect relationship" is enough for liability even for downstream flooding."

The Second Appellate Court Justice--Steven Z. Perren---Kenneth R. Yegan---Arthar Gilbert---Paul Coffee would not talk about these photos that went with exhibit # 579 that Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman did not feel were needed as evidence as he and Union Pacific Railroad stated ""And for the purpose of the exhibits we don't need the photographs." The Court States: "All Right" In regards to these photos the County of San Luis Obispo asks on their Community Drainage and Flood Control Study Questionnaire---"Are there Any other comments regarding drainage and flooding that you would like to make?" It was weitten "Yes" showing these photos that Judge Martin J. Tangeman told the Railroad they did not have to include with exhibit # 579. This prejudicial error shows Causation and no Date of Stabilization!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Chief Justice Ronald M. George
• Associate Justice Ming W. Chin
• inverse condemnation

[InverseCondemnation1]

The County of San Luis Obispo now admits that the flooding of State Highway 1 is not the fault of Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange as the County Of San Luis Obispo states in this same E-Mail dated November 8, 2010---- “However, because of the relatively flat grades it is anticipated that the pipe may need frequent maintenance to keep it clear of the eucalyptus leaves that currently clog the existing ditch and pipe.

[InverseCondemnation1]

e 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]

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]

Bookout challenges the trial court's findings by listing what it characterizes as changed conditions since the Exchange constructed the junction box in the 1970's. The alleged changed conditions include: maintenance activities, modifications to Well No. 8, weed abatement, removal of a retaining wall, alteration of Highway 1, shoveling and grading of debris, accumulation of debris, and an increase in impervious surfaces."

As stated by the Second Appellate Court.

[InverseCondemnation1]

How is it legal that the County of San Luis of Obispo can withhold evidence from discovery and then use only part of this evidence withheld from discovery at trial?

Is government not responsible to provide all of the documents that they have withheld from discovery when presenting new evidence?

Why is Caltrans allowed to shovel debris into the storm water drainage channel as seen above in the videos presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman?