Associate Justice Ming W. Chin and Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter

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.

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.

In November or December of 2010 the California Supreme Court will decide about this undisputed facts below and video evidence of Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and the Oceano Community Service District in the published California Case law Decision Bookout v. State of California!

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.

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. STATE OF CALIFORNIA”

THE SECOND APPELLATE COURT STATES: “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 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 drainages systems as seen in these photos! Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf…

The Second Appellate Court is mistaken on P. 8 of their July 28, 2010 published California Case Law decision as testimony presented to the Second Appellate Court from Phil Davis of the Oceano Community Service District and exhibit 1768 are facts that have been seen and mentioned by the Second Appellate Court! This evidence is overwhelming as seen above and below! These drainage changesare made after the Appellate Courts P. 8 100% Blame of the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange!

Duration : 0:8:26

Read more about Associate Justice Ming W. Chin and Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter

California Supreme Court -California Case Law

The Second Appellate Court Justices–Steven Z. Perren Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert in their published July 28, 2010 Case Law decision put responsibility for this culvert as stated: “The court found that the Railroad may have been negligent by failing to enlarge the culvert or requiring that its tenant do so.”

OK–Why is this OCSD pipe allowed in this drainage channel? Why is OCSD not Responsible?

Superior Court Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney in her February 2, 2009 Judgment Decision “Notice of Judgment” States: “Judge Tangeman determined the flooding problem was “static” for several years prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of his property. Plaintiff contends the flooding is continuous and can be abated. Plaintiff argues Defendants negligent maintenance of the drainage system increases the frequency and severity of the flooding. That is inconsistent with Judge Tangeman’s determination that the primary culprit was POVE’s improvements, rather than negligent maintenance of the drainage system. There was no showing that Union’s operation of Well No. 8 contributed to the blockage. There was no showing of the County’s responsibility for maintaining the drainage channel. There was no evidence that any accumulated debris in State’s right of way contributed to the problems in the operation of the drainage system. County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance”

Why would the State of California use the State Highway for storm water retention?

Molly Thurmond, ESQ. (SBN 104973) and Thomas A Cregger, ESQ. (SBN 124402) both knew at the time of trial that both had knowledge of these Causation/Date of Stabilization-Photos and Documents,Whitnesses that they withheld from discovery and Judge Martin J. Tangeman! (DURING TRIAL.) Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP on July 30, 2008 provided Questionnaires. The color photos above where not provided until December 2, 2008 after trial as previously requested. Dean Benedix, County response No. 2–October 16, 2008 “Response: We will produce copies of the requested attachments and photographs per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $15.00.”
Lou Wheeler photos-Documents showing no flooding prior to 2004 –as viewed by Dean Benedix, Randy Ghezzi, Raleigh Greene, Max Keller, Cliff Howe, Michael Eckman per Dean Benedix statement: “I believe the attached photos are from Lois Wheeler of Oceano 481-5687 D Benedix 6/10/02”
Response No.3 from Dean Benedix After trial regarding documents wittheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo! “We will produce copies of written communications and photos (in Color) Sent by oceano community members to Questa Engineering or the County of San Luis Obispo in regards to flooding in Oceano between 2000-2004 per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $10.00.”

San Luis Obispo County/Union Pacific Railroad Exhibit # 579 photo documents withheld from discovery by County of San Luis Obispo and Union Pacific Rail Road shows Caltrans raising State Highway 1 a foot and the flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 this created, as stated in the document provided with County 2002 Drainage Study Questionnaire! These color photos where provided December 2, 2008 and are not part of (Appendix 15) showing no Stabilization to this drainage system!

Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 [28 Cal.Rptr. 357] involved damage caused by an accelerated flow of surface water over newly developed land adjoining plaintiff’s property, collected in an enlarged culvert and sent through plaintiff’s existing ditch. The court noted the basis of the city’s liability was its failure to appreciate the probability that the drainage system from the new development to the Frustuck property, functioning as deliberately conceived, and as altered and maintained by the diversion of waters from their normal channels, would result in some damage to private property. (Id. at p. 362.) The drainage system, which the city had accepted and approved, was a public improvement and it did not matter if the city had not been the one that actually physically diverted the water. (Ibid.) “The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency.” (Id. at pp. 362-363.)

The Second Appellate talks about this in Barrett v. County of Ventura–Filed 6/23/

Duration : 0:10:49

Read more about California Supreme Court -California Case Law

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.

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

Duration : 0:5:27

Read more about Chief Justice Ronald M. George