Governor Jerry Brown, Chief Justice Ronald M. George

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. What does the California Supreme Court think Per the undisputed facts as presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman?

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!
California Residents Health and safety has been put in danger with the Second Appellate Court published California Case Law ruling July 28, 2010 in Bookout v. State of California.

Please review the following websites and the YouTube videos of Caltrans shoveling and grading contaminated storm water and debris into one of our States storm water drainage systems and then the Oceano Community Service District being allowed to use this same storm water drainage system to discharge 2500 gallons of their drinking water and debris into this system daily!

Please review the following websites: www.governorarnoldschwarzenegger.net
www.inversecondemnation.net www.californiasupremecourt.info www.californiasupremecourts.com www.secondappellatecourt.com www.oceanonursery.com www.supremecourtofcalifornia.com www.supremecourtcalifornia.com www.supremecourtjustices.net www.unitedstatessupremecourt.net
www.governormegwhitman.co www.unitedstatessupremcourt.com
www.governorbrown.net www.lieutenantgovernorabelmaldonado.com
www.senatorsamblakeslee.com www.governorjerrybrown.net
www.governormegwhitmancalifornia.com www.assemblymankatchoachadjian.com www.governorabelmaldonado.com
www.californiasupremecourt.co

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Chief Justice Ronald M. George
• Associate Justice Ming W. Chin
• inverse condemnation
• Statute of Limitations
• Associate
• Justice
• Ming
• W.
• Chin
• Inverse Condemnation
• California Constitution
• Caltrans
• County of San Luis Obispo

[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]

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]

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]

Bookout v. State of California needs to be reheard with Judge Martin J. Tangeman withholding evidence that went with exhibit #579 How is Government allowed to dredge debris into a communities storm water drainage channel, while Caltrans is allowed to shovel debris into a storm water drainage channel?