Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard and Justice Steven Z. Perren

Justices Steven Z. Perren from the second Appellate court blames POVE 100% for the flooding of this State Highway! What does the California Supreme Court think Per the undisputed facts as presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman?

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.




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!

Exhibits into evidence showing OCSD drainage changes since December 2002. OCSD obtaining their prescriptive Easment Exhibit # 1729, #1730, OCSD told Southern Pacific Railroad April 21, 1983 in a letter

"This Channel has been protected by use of a culvert that would conduct surface waters under Southern Pacific tracks to what may be a bunker under the loading docks of the Pismo-Oceano Vegetable Exchange (POVE) . The water, then, might flow to a small retention basin maintained by POVE."


"Because this is an established drainage channel. The District feels that its full design capacity should be available for use. Research, however has not clearly revealed the agency responsible for the maintenance of the channel. Consequently, we have no idea the condition of the channel and weather, in its present state of maintenance; it can adequately carry the quantity of water that will be discharged."

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Inverse Condemnation
• Statute of Limitations
• Date of Stabilization
• flooding
• Caltrans
• Bookout v. State of California

[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!