Honorable
California Supreme Court Justices, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado and California State Senator Sam
Blakslee
Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado stated in a letter May 12, 2009
"I hope that you continue to seek legal counsel and that this very difficult situation will be resolved soon." Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado has seen these Caltrans documents Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf
Videos seen by the Second Appellate Court of California (Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan) showing Caltrans Shoveling and Grading Contaminated debris into a storm water drainage system, over and over!
Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado and Senator Sam Blakeslee, are aware of the County Of San Luis Obispo letters in this pdf file showing the--
County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal and their December 18, 2006 letter calling this flooding a "potentially dangerious situation" pdfThe Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan do not mention--
Testimony
of Caltrans in front of Judge Martin J. Tangeman- P. 1506 of the Court
Transcript of Caltrans Supervisor Fred Brebes before their actions above! Mr. Brebes States: "Question:
And did -- And did during this period of time, do you recall your
maintenance crews working within the channel that leads from Highway 1
off of 13th Street? Answer: Yes." P.
1508 By Mr. Belsher: So did your crews engage in this practice of
using a loader to clean the channel that's depicted in that photograph,
on more then one occasion? Answer: Yeah -- Yes, I Would say Yes
California Supreme Court--Inverse Condemnation
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 have seen the Caltrans photo evidence from this 1953 Caltrans photo before the County and Caltrans changed the drainage at Highway 1 13th and Paso Robles streets!Caltrans 1953 Aerial Photo Knowlodge of County/Caltrans drainage changes to our Pacific Ocean! pdf...
This photo above shows the Railroads property before the County and
Cal Trans changed the Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel. This photo was
provided by Cal Trans from a 1973 Drainage study going to the OceanIt is unfortunate that San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman would not allow in as evidence Exhibit 1789.
This evidence tied in with the photos below, that went with exhibit #
579 that Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman chose also to not
allow in as evidence showing that the flooding of our State Highway
could be abated for only $43,295.00 as seen in exhibit # 1790.
Caltrans actions as seen in these photos raising State Highway 1 a foot
has put every California resident in danger with this new California
Case Law decision July 28, 2010!
Bookout v. State Of California K... Bookout v. State of California Supreme Court Appeal...
Honorable
California Supreme Court Justices, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado and California State Senator Sam
Blakslee Exhibit # 1789 talks about what the photos show in exhibit # 579 that Judge Martin J. Tangeman would not allow into evidence! Why is Caltrans raising our State Highway as seen in these photos knowing of prior drainage Problems?
Please inform each California Senator and State Assembly Member of San
Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman's actions!
Exhibit # 1789 States September 15, 1987: “It
was believed that our proposed plan of installing a 36-inch pipe to
replace an existing 24- inch pipe would be acceptable to the property
owners if it could be shown that the project would only affect the
downstream owners minimally.”
“And that even though there
had been some light rainfall years there is a good possibility of heavy
flooding in this area in the future of both the Highway areas and the
County areas.”
“The
State could raise the height of Highway one approximately one foot and
leave both the County and the Oceano Community Services District the
problem to solve on their own (P. Hom)” Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf
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.heritageoaksbankquestions.com 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.californiasupremcourt.co
This is the Oceano Community Service District opinion of the evidence
presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman as seen in the websites above!Adam M. Daner Supreme Court Answer To Petition For Review Case No. S1852767 Case No. B214906 pdf...
I would like to thank, Mark L, Mosley of the law Firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate, LLP
for their Amicus Brief Letter as all California Residents are affected
by the Second Appellate Courts published California Case Law Decision
in Bookout v. State Of California July 28, 2010! Amicus Letter in Bookout v. State Of California to the California Supreme Court September 8, 2010 pdf...
Mr. Derek S. Van Hoften, representing Caltrans misleads the California Supreme Court in his Opposition
Depublication request from the Second Appellate Court. Mr. Van Hoften,
ignores the Amicus Brief showing Baker v. Glendale-Pasadena Airport
Authority (1985) He States: "(1)
the three-year statute of limitations applies to bar the action because
the flooding allegedly caused by the public entities did not constitute
control or possession of plaintiff's property," How is
it that Caltrans can raise a State Highway and not have to address
State drainage per new California Case Law "Bookout v. State of
California"?
Caltrans Answer to Petition For Review September 15, 2010 ignoring Baker v. Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985)_...
Mr. Van Hoften, States: "Second,
Plaintiff asks whether public agencies should be allowed to use and
maintain a public improvement for their surface water discharge and
drainage systems in a manner which creates flooding of nearby
neighboring private property. (Pet. at 1., 7.) However, the Court of
Appeal did not find that the agencies in this case had used or
maintained a public improvement: moreover, the plain holding of the Court of Appeal's decision was that the public agencies did not cause the flooding of Plaintiff's property."
Mr. Van Hoften ignores the Testimony of Caltrans in
front of Judge Martin J. Tangeman- P. 1506 of the Court Transcript of
Caltrans Supervisor Fred Brebes. Mr. Brebes States: "Question:
And did -- And did during this period of time, do you recall your
maintenance crews working within the channel that leads from Highway 1
off of 13th Street? Answer: Yes." P.
1508 By Mr. Belsher: So did your crews engage in this practice of
using a loader to clean the channel that's depicted in that photograph,
on more then one occasion? Answer: Yeah -- Yes, I Would say Yes." Question: So was this part of the maintenance that you oversaw as Supervisor during those years, '83 Through '88? Answer: Yes. Question and did you continue that practice in the years until your retirement in 2002, to your knowledge? Answer: I can't say. Question: Well, we saw the photograph of 2000, for example. Answer: UH-HUH Question: That's the one you're looking at. You were a Superintendent at that time; Correct? Answer:
Yes" P. 1509 By Mr. Belsher: Did you instruct your employees on
maintenance activities with respect to the channel that's depicted in
1467? Answer: YES.--------Question: So up to the years of 1996
when you became Superintendent, did you instruct workers under your
supervision to clear the channel? Answer: YES Question: And that clearing went how far into the channel, to your recollection? Answer:
Well, in the case, it's probably about as far as that loader went, but
that depends. At certain times, I know that we have gone back to the
culvert." Page 1513 Answer: Um, I didn't know the Railroad --I Don't know the Railroad owns that property but. Question: You didn't obtain permission from anybody at that point in time in terms of entering--" Answer: For 13th Street? No."-------------Exhibits
in exhibit # 579 withheld from discovery and allowed by Judge Martin J.
Tangeman show Mr. Brebes being involved with Fountain Ave Flooding and
photos of him raising State Highway 1 a foot in 2000! These same
photos above that San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J.
Tangeman would not allow into evidence---Show Caltrans abating a flood
danger as seen in the photo of the Caltrans loader inside this storm
water drainage channel!
Caltrans Derek S. Van Hoften request for California Case law in Bookout v. State California July 13, 2010 pdf...
Mr Derek S. Van Hoften ignores Caltrans Statement to Judge Martin J. Tangeman also seen in exhibit # 579 photos withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo! Derek S. Van Hoften states to the Second Appellate Court. "Here, the opinion demonstrates that relatively consistent and static flooding does not constitute "maintaining possession or control " over the property or any portion of it, so as to trigger application of the five-year limitation." "While the Court properly applied the existing law in this case, there is no published opinion demonstrating that this rule of law applies in the context of relatively consistent and static flooding where there has been no actual entry or physical construction by the public entity."
Mr Derek S. Van Hoften of Caltrans states: "Second, the opinion explains another existing rule of law: where the judgment is against the party who has the burden of proof, it is almost impossible for him to prevail on appeal by arguing the evidence compels a judgment in his favor." Inverse Condemnation should now be herd by a Jury instead of a Judge with these statements by Caltrans!
Caltrans---Mr. McKinley's statement below showing Caltrans "physical construction by the public entity."
changing the drainage stabilization of HWY 1. 13th, and Paso Robles
Streets--per exhibit 579 and McKinley testimony shows drainage
construction by a public entity "Caltrans"!
Answer: (P. 643) Yeah,
I responded to a communication that our maintenance engineer received
from Bill Bookout, that there was ponding, A ponding issue at the
corners of 13th and Highway 1 and Paso Robles and Highway 1. And so it
was in response to that communication." Question: Do you know approximately which side of the State highway this ponding occurred? Answer: "It was on the East Side". " Page 645 “We reconstructed the pavement, so we put base and we put asphalt down.” “I believe we put down half a foot of A.C., I believe.Question: (P 653 Cross-Examination by Caltrans-Exhibit photos 579) "And when you--It was your understanding that the reason this job -- You were asked to design this job was because the Plaintiff had complained about ponding on the East Side near his property, of State Route 1? Answer: Correct." --"Objection; Leading"
The Court OVERRULED.
Question: (P.. 658) “Mr. Mckinley, in that grinding crown removal project in 2003, do you recollect removing any portions of 13th Street or Paso Robles street?” Answer: “That was – Yeah, we went up to do our conforms, yes.” Question: Do you know about how far up those streets you went, if you can recollect?” Answer: “From the plans, I want – it seems to be around 70 –70 feet, I believe. Seventy feet.” Page 659 “We did adjust crowns on adjust crowns on 13th and Paso.
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan State after reviewing the testimony above from Caltrans--2002-Mr. McKinley " Answer: (P. 643) Yeah, I responded to a communication that our maintenance engineer received from Bill Bookout, that there was ponding, A ponding issue at the corners of 13th and Highway 1 and Paso Robles and Highway 1. And so it was in response to that communication."----------- ”Bookout argues the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence that was not produced during discovery. The document is a county 7 drainage study questionnaire returned by Bookout in July 2002. Bookout stated on the questionnaire that the area floods one foot or more once a year and that the flooding has damaged his inventory.
The County explained that it was unaware of the document at the time of discovery. It said that the questionnaire responses were summarized for inclusion in a drainage study, but they were not filed by name, address or location. The Railroad's counsel happened to find Bookout's response during Crowe's testimony. The County pointed out that Bookout must have been aware of the document because he submitted it to the County. The trial court found the failure to produce the document was not in bad faith, and refused to impose discovery sanctions."
This pdf file County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal in regards to the Evidence Withheld From Discovery involving their County Insurance. pdf Shows how our California Court system now works in allowing evidence to be withheld from Discovery. The published California Case law Decision "Bookout v. State of California (2010) changes our Constitution! Please review the names attached to these County of San Luis Obispo letters showing who was aware of this withholding of evidence! The February 6, 2007 letter shows the names ( Clayton U. Hall---Jay A. Hieatt---Mark B. Connely---Linda D. Hurst, Stephanie A. Brown, Julie C. Grebel, Molly E. Thurmond, Paul E. Kremer---Written to Mauri McGuire Carl Warren & Company, Rita L. Neal and Debra A. Hossli, Risk Manager!
The Second Appellate Court in their July 28, 2010 published case law decision fail to talk about Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. As briefed and used by Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman. The Appellate Court States: "Bookout
contends the trial court improperly applied a reasonableness test to
determine liability. He points out that except for damage caused by
public flood control projects, the test in inverse condemnation actions
is strict liability. (Citing Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722, 753-754.)
But Bookout fails to point to anywhere in the record that the
trial court applied the reasonableness test instead of strict
liability. In any event, the court's ruling was based on the statute of
limitations and failure to prove causation. The results are the same
under the reasonableness test or strict liability. The defendants
prevail."
The Second Appellate Court ignores 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
Appellate Court ignores Caltrans ownership of the first four feet of
the storm water drainage inlet and the OCSD ownership and control of
their Well # 8 pipe inside this storm water drainage channel per
exhibit # 1278-1337 and 1338 that Judge Martin J. Tangeman talks about
on P. 7 of his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision! The
Appellate Court ignores exhibit # 1768 presented to the Second
Appellate Court showing OCSD maintenance and drainage changes in
December 2002 changeing the Statute of Limitations! Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...
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 and the governments use of this
storm water drainage system P. 11! "In the case of OCSD, the evidence largely consisted of the construction of
the drainage outfall from Well No. 8 In the vicinity of the culvert. While there
was evidence of substantial amounts of water being discharged from well # 8,
there was an absence of evidence that such discharges occurred contemporaneously
with heavy rains and flooding problems."
"Plaintiff also alleged that OCSD should be liable because its outfall pipe
acted as a dam to capture debris in times of flooding, and/or that at times of
discharge from its outfall pipe, debris may have been pushed into the culvert."
"In each of these cases, the Court finds that the evidence is too speculative to
support liability for inverse condemnation. No studies were undertaken or
evidence provided showing the effect, if any, of either of these factors during
times of flooding."
The Second Appellate Court ignores 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 Appellate Court ignores Caltrans ownership of the first four feet of the storm water drainage inlet and the OCSD ownership and control of their Well # 8 pipe inside this storm water drainage channel per exhibit # 1278-1337 and 1338 that Judge Martin J. Tangeman talks about on P. 7 of his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision! The Appellate Court ignores exhibit # 1768 presented to the Second Appellate Court showing OCSD maintenance and drainage changes in December 2002 changeing the Statute of Limitations! Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...
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! Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...
The Second Appellate Court July 28, 2010 published decision compleatly ignores Statute Of Limitations changes as seen in exhibit # 579 "Did
you observe likely causes of the flooding, such as clogged culverts
under roads, catch basins filled with dirt, no place for water to flow?" On Exhibit # 579 withheld from discovery by the County Of San Luis Obispo it was stated--- "Hwy 1 Not Adaquate drainage on Hwy 1 under the train track & Overlay from Caltrans in 2001 on Hwy 1"
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! County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...
The one Photo that Union Pacific RailRoad did Include in Exhibit # 579
shows that their is in Stabilization in this drainage system as stated
on this photo exhibit " Pipeline in rail road culvert obstructin flow
(Culvert Abuse) 13th Street & Highway 1 Mr. Bookout" Exhibt # 1768
and 1756 backs up this statement showing no Date Of Stabilization with
this OCSD drainage change since 1977!County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...
RE:
Statute of Limitations and Prejudicial Error in regards to evidence
withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo Molly Thurmond,
Esq. (SBN 104973)Exhibit #579 (Appendix 15) Prejudicial Error or
Not? Photo/Statement Documents withheld by County Of San Luis Obispo
And Railroad at trial as allowed by Judge Tangeman, as Judge Tangeman Stated "All Right" County of San Luis Obispo Causation in permits and drainage requirements on private property. OCSD and Caltrans correcting 2002 drainage complaint problems in 2002/2003 as stated in exhibit #579 Complaint, Caltrans-McKinley Testomony P. 645 and (RA exhibit #1768) changing the Statute of Limitations! Date of Stabilization!
County photo
documents withheld from discovery by County and Rail Road Exhibit # 579
showing flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 after Caltrans
raised State Highway 1 as stated in document provided with County 2002
Drainage Study Questionnaire! These photos where provided December 2,
2008 and are not part of (Appendix 15) showing no Date of
StabilizationStabilization!
Why would
a California Superior Court Judge allow partial evidence, exhibit # 579
to be withheld from discovery as stated in the Court Transcripts by
Union Pacific Railroad and Judge Tangeman? “And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” The Court States: “All Right”
Judge Tangeman after his August 5, 2010 Inverse Condemnation
Decision States on P. 2117-2018 without acknowledging the photographs,
regardoing other documents withheld from discovery.
"I accept Mr. Belsher's argument these questionnaires where not
available at that time. They weren't available until July 30th." "no
fruther information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here
I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them."
The Second Appellate Court Ruling
June 28, 2010 Allows Caltrans to Raise and flood State Highway 1 --13th
and Paso Robles Streets in Oceano California and then Grade and shovel
debris into the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel putting
blame on a produce company for 1977 construction! This ruling allows
the United States government to discharge debris and well water into
our United States drainage systems stating: "the nuisance or trespass
alledged here is permanent."!
California and United States Justices, 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, Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor
The Second Appellate Court of California has changed our California Case Law in Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. and Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. Court of Appeal Opinion: [PDF] Filed 6/28/10 Modified and certified for publication 7/28/10 (order attached)
Now in the publised decision Bookout et al. v. State
of California Dept. of Transportation, government (Caltrans, OCSD) is
allowed to fill in storm water drainage channels and dredge debris into
storm water drainage systems as seen and talked about by Justice--Steven Z. Perren---Kenneth R. Yegan---Arthar
Gilbert in their publised July 28, 2010 Decision! Notice Photos talked
about by the Second Appellate Court in their Julu 28, 2010 Inverse
Condemnation decision!!
The Second Appellate Court States in their July 28, 2010 published decision in regards to these photos above "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."
This statement above by the Second Appellate Court affects every
California resident and changes our California Case Law with the Second
Appellate Courts published decision July 28, 2010 in Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation. This decision now changes--Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. and Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783.
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! County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...
The one Photo that Union Pacific RailRoad did Include in Exhibit # 579 shows that their is in Stabilization in this drainage system as stated on this photo exhibit " Pipeline in rail road culvert obstructin flow (Culvert Abuse) 13th Street & Highway 1 Mr. Bookout" Exhibt # 1768 and 1756 backs up this statement showing no Date Of Stabilization with this OCSD drainage change since 1977!County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...
RE: Statute of Limitations and Prejudicial Error in regards to evidence withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo Molly Thurmond, Esq. (SBN 104973)Exhibit #579 (Appendix 15) Prejudicial Error or Not? Photo/Statement Documents withheld by County Of San Luis Obispo And Railroad at trial as allowed by Judge Tangeman, as Judge Tangeman Stated "All Right" County of San Luis Obispo Causation in permits and drainage requirements on private property. OCSD and Caltrans correcting 2002 drainage complaint problems in 2002/2003 as stated in exhibit #579 Complaint, Caltrans-McKinley Testomony P. 645 and (RA exhibit #1768) changing the Statute of Limitations! Date of Stabilization!
County photo documents withheld from discovery by County and Rail Road Exhibit # 579 showing flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 after Caltrans raised State Highway 1 as stated in document provided with County 2002 Drainage Study Questionnaire! These photos where provided December 2, 2008 and are not part of (Appendix 15) showing no Date of StabilizationStabilization!
Why would a California Superior Court Judge allow partial evidence, exhibit # 579 to be withheld from discovery as stated in the Court Transcripts by Union Pacific Railroad and Judge Tangeman? “And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” The Court States: “All Right” Judge Tangeman after his August 5, 2010 Inverse Condemnation Decision States on P. 2117-2018 without acknowledging the photographs, regardoing other documents withheld from discovery. "I accept Mr. Belsher's argument these questionnaires where not available at that time. They weren't available until July 30th." "no fruther information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them."
The Second Appellate Court Ruling June 28, 2010 Allows Caltrans to Raise and flood State Highway 1 --13th and Paso Robles Streets in Oceano California and then Grade and shovel debris into the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel putting blame on a produce company for 1977 construction! This ruling allows the United States government to discharge debris and well water into our United States drainage systems stating: "the nuisance or trespass alledged here is permanent."!
California and United States Justices, 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, Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor
The Second Appellate Court of California has changed our California Case Law in Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. and Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. Court of Appeal Opinion: [PDF] Filed 6/28/10 Modified and certified for publication 7/28/10 (order attached)
Now in the publised decision Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation, government (Caltrans, OCSD) is allowed to fill in storm water drainage channels and dredge debris into storm water drainage systems as seen and talked about by Justice--Steven Z. Perren---Kenneth R. Yegan---Arthar Gilbert in their publised July 28, 2010 Decision! Notice Photos talked about by the Second Appellate Court in their Julu 28, 2010 Inverse Condemnation decision!!
The Second Appellate Court States in their July 28, 2010 published decision in regards to these photos above "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."
This statement above by the Second Appellate Court affects every California resident and changes our California Case Law with the Second Appellate Courts published decision July 28, 2010 in Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation. This decision now changes--Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. and Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783.
