California Supreme Court

Exhibits presented to Teresa Estrada-Mullaney and Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...

                         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!

The California Second Appellate Court Justices ...

Second Appellate Court Changing the California ...

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" pdf

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...

The Second Appellate Court has seen this Caltrans August 11, 1967 photo showing the Railroad house's have been removed and that the drainage channel is different then today. The Second Appellate Court is mistaken in their statement "The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees."

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 Ocean

It 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 13^th 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 13^th 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 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.

Main Navigation

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--

California Supreme Court--Inverse Condemnation

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"!