Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 VOLUME II
3 TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION, 18 USC 1962 (c) and (d) and Prayer for Relief.
4
Plaintiff Remington and the Burl Tree for its RICO complaint against the RICO defendants
5
listed below, alleges as follows:
6
INTRODUCTION
7
800. Over the course of several years beginning around 2011-12, primary RICO defendant
8
Russell Gans, his law partners, defendants and numerous co-conspirators have intentionally sought to
9 extort, defraud, maliciously crush and otherwise tortuously injure and destroy the land and
10 personal property of Remington and his solely owned business the Burl Tree. Originating in about
11 2007-8, as simple hyper- aggressive litigation by defendants, by 2012 those same defendants had
12 gradually conceived and evolved a criminal plot to unscrupulously WIN their frivolous retaliatory,
13 unmeritorious lawsuit against Remington, at all costs. Therefore they began converting their
14 defensive and offensive litigation strategies to rely upon progressively more unethical and illegal
evidence, mischaracterizations and falsifications, which have now by January 2017 substantially and
15
exponentially escalated into a full-blown RICO enterprise, which meets all of the requirements of the
16
state and federal statutes, and then some.
17
801. By late 2015, Gans enterprises objectives that clearly manifested themselves into:
18
Avoiding their lawful contamination cleanup costs; Appropriating all of Remingtons land which they
19 had encroached upon since 1998, which gradually increases as it moves down the mountain;
20 Avoiding all fines and criminal liability for their substantial crimes in 1998, and then those since
21 2012 involved in the massive cover-up; Making a huge amount of money for everyone involved in
22 the enterprise, bar none and especially for Gans, Plotz, Mathson and Lawrence; Fully defeating,
23 humiliating and crushing Remingtons family and business financially, emotionally and health-wise
24 because they were very angry that he stood up for himself and attempted to fight this vast
conspiracy merely to get his property justly cleaned-up, according to California law.
25
802. Therefore, defendants have thus formed the Eureka, California-based associated-in-fact
26
RICO enterprise which has and is substantially damaging Remingtons established, (solely) interstate
27
commerce business, The Burl Tree.
28
803. This RICO enterprise has always been led by Gans, however he is very closely assisted
by his fellow Mitchell firm law partners, Ryan Plotz, Paul Brisso, Nicholas Kloeppel and Julie
McBride, Gans Executive Assistant, plus the Mitchell firm itself is a sixth named defendant in this
10 Martel and other operatives in the health department, described in the RICO statement, in order to
11 attempt to fully rehabilitate and exonerate Mathson and improperly, unscientifically and illogically
defeat all of Remingtons testing in one stroke;
12
B. Next Gans and Brisso exerted their entirely improper influence within the Health
13
Department, because of Brissos frequent and constant role as County and city Counsel, according to
14
Remingtons primary real estate appraisal witness, David Tidwell. Tidwell is on the inside of local
15
government and understands many of the devious and corrupt practices which have taken place in
16 this case to date. Brisso therefore succeeded in delaying Maje Hoyos conclusive water and soil
17 hydrocarbon tests in Remingtons lower swamp area until late December 2011, which made them
18 much too late to be used in the DR 080668 proceedings. Judge Reinholtsen could have made
19 exceptions and been more lenient the way he was with Esko, who did all his incompetent work1
20 almost a year after discovery closed, yet that work was still allowed into the case, despite it being
21 irrelevant because it was done on another Different piece of property, not involved in Remingtons
contamination dispute.
22
828. The bottom line here was that considerable influence and corrupt pressures were exerted
23
upon several county government bureaucracies, which resulted in obviously improper, illogical and
24
inconsistent decisions, because of actions taken by Gans enterprise. The only consistency is that all
25
1. Eskos work was fully incompetent on every level of analysis possible. It was one-sided because
26 the county did not want any opposing views from our experts which we offered to them. The main
problem with Eskos conclusions were that they were based exclusively on Blue Rocks entirely
27 incompetent testing which John Aveggio conclusively proved was entirely fraudulent and without
28 any merit at all because the laboratory tests were done 6-8 weeks out of scientifically valid holding-
time, and in other words after all the hydrocarbons in their soil samples head fully volatilized down
in to different hot Southern California laboratories, while supposedly waiting to be tested.as a
result all of Gans soil and water test results were incompetent, worthless, presumed to be fraudulent
by our experts, enhance Esko's report was similarly fraudulent and incompetent because it was
based on knowingly and intentionally fraudulent raw data.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
9
1
of the above described in the many other related ones always benefit Gans enterprise and help it to
2
achieve its objectives against Remington, as assisted by many of those named herein. Obviously,
3
Remington is now attempting by these multiple actions to permanently undo some of those unjust
4
and presumed to be corrupt decisions, and get his property cleaned up by the polluters.
5
829. Finally, continuing with defendants fraudulent and incompetent testing of their own, and
6 their simultaneous pretenses that all of Remingtons tests were similarly unreliable, unprofessional or
7 in effect not to their liking, Gans came up with a new, purely extortion every tactic: Gans invented
8 Hillyard of Farallon. Hillyard was allegedly brought in very improperly to do unknown testing, at
9 unknown times, at unknown locations which were inside Remingtons fenced areas and therefore
10 were per se violations of No Trespassing, Violators will be Prosecuted signs.
11 830. No scientific purpose was accomplished by Hillyard because his tests, if any were not
admissible in any trials, and apparently Hillyard was intended to rehabilitate the discredited Blue
12
Rock testers Ferriman and Gwinn. The only purpose Gans accomplished by threatening and
13
inferring that Hillyard had done tests which refuted all of Remingtons experts testing, over several
14
years in the swamp area, was extortion. Without providing any details, specifics or any scientifically
15
valid locational information, Gans just asserted that Hillyard had refuted all of Remingtons tests,
16 especially Hoyos, so watch out in effect. All innuendo, fear, intimidation and coercion is an
17 excellent example of further Gans extortion on behalf of his enterprise. No other purpose was
18 accomplished, nothing scientific, but merely a fear tactic.
19 831. Meanwhile, Gans continued to keep up his derisive, improper and unethical motion
20 practices, and especially claiming in his March 2016 severance motion documents that none of
21 Remington tests were valid because Remington had contaminated his land himself by spilling
gasoline on the ground, and otherwise tampering with the evidence and creating artificial conditions
22
on his property, etc.
23
832. Remington estimates that what Gans began in 2008-10 as only 10% false statements and
24
material factual mischaracterizations, had graduated to 35% by 2012, 50% by 2014-15 and was in the
25
70% range by August 2016. Those very rapidly increasing, corrupt and disbarringly unethical Gans
26 material mischaracterizations and false unprovable accusations, were deliberate and fraudulent acts
27 of coercion and extortion, intended solely to reach the Enterprises improper and illegal objectives of
28 making Remington go away, while taking nothing in effect, PLUS paying the enterprise for their
deceptive and corrupt services. Obviously justice has nothing to do with Gans purposes, and none of
Gans irrational threats, allegations and unscientific dynamics are true or could ever be proven. The
TRUTH is that, Gans has no actual honest, relevant evidence to back up any of his false allegations
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
10
1
and even if they were true as he has stated them, they are not scientifically valid and what he alleges
2
that Remington has done, such as his Kuwait fire extinguishing experiments, could not possibly
3
actually accomplish or produce the facts that are visible on the ground today.
4
833. In other words, it is scientifically impossible that what Gans has alleged to have polluted
5
Remingtons own property is correct, and therefore it is doubly impossible that Remingtons
6 minimalist activity could have contaminated Mathsons land 200 yards away, down a mountain,
7 underneath a creek, across a major gorge and then halfway up another mountain.
8 834. Additionally, Mathsons hazardous waste landfills have millions of pounds of toxic wastes
9 on both properties and there is absolutely no machinery access from Remingtons land. Does Gans
10 allege that Remington took 50,000 wheelbarrow loads across that above-referenced impassable
11 terrain with no paths or bridges, wheeled-them up a slope too steep and slippery to even walk on foot
and dumped 30,000 of them up on Mathsons land? What would be the purpose of that and where
12
did Remington get 4000 yd. of hazardous wastes?
13
835. Therefore, what Gans alleges is frivolous, stupid, nonsensical and knowingly
14
fraudulent intended to deceive all applicable triers of fact. Furthermore, all of Gans defenses
15
above are so ridiculous and inapplicable to any conditions or test results from any of these properties,
16 that they would clearly be inadmissible at any trial.
17 836. Gans evidence spoliation and false experts reports. By summer 2014, it had become
18 apparent that the Ninth Circuit appellate decision was not likely to seriously impact these successive
19 action lawsuits, and Remington drafted DR140426 for the three (3) years of environmental damages
20 from 2011-2014.
21 837. As a retaliation to those events, Gans began a new dramatic series of unethical and
criminal activities during 2015. Those included directing Mathson and his other principal soldiers to
22
fabricate evidentiary photographs, remove or cover up virtually all incriminating contaminated waste
23
which were visible at the ground surface, destroy Remingtons property and generally obstruct
24
justice, distract and injure Remington and essentially force him to give up many more of his precious
25
golden years.
26 838. During the extended 2016 pre-trial hearing Gans focused mostly on refuting all of
27 Remingtons photographs, scientific tests and experts testimonial evidence with various
28 falsifications and mischaracterizations on several hundred material issues, which eventually took
more than three months to sort through. Additionally, Gans and Plotz knowingly miscited and
misconstrued the controlling Supreme Court law in these cases, and especially confused Judge
Reinholtsen over the sophisticated principles of collateral estoppel regarding exactly what specific
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
11
1
facts, if any, were determined from a magistrates diffuse technical dismissal of the case, wherein
2
with no environmental expert on Remington side of the case, it was not possible to meet any of the
3
elements of any of the statutory violations. Clearly there, the magistrate dismissed Remingtons
4
federal case with the intention of preserving all of his state causes of action for state court wherein he
5
had at least four experts already properly discovered and fully admitted into the cases. Defendants
6 however managed to confuse that issue and therefore it is requested for adjudication by this court in
7 the environmental section of this complaint.
8 839. Despite Remingtons extensive surveillance video recordings of Mathsons evidence
9 spoliation, removal and cover-up with redwood needles and other organic matter; Remingtons
10 overwhelming evidentiary support for his activities from 1998-2006 which prevented his discovery
11 of any of defendants contamination; and, Remingtons thorough photographic documentation of that
entire period, nevertheless Gans prevailed in the SOL trial by coaching all of his trial witnesses to lie
12
and misrepresent the known, true facts from John Mathson to Mike Pulley. Serial, consistent perjury
13
among five (5) colluding witnesses on what was essentially a simple yes or no question is hard, if not
14
impossible to defeat without advanced knowledge of that perjury and previous depositions of all of
15
the perjurers, which Remington did not have in this case. He will have it in the federal case and will
16 therefore defeat it.
17 840. Although slightly off topic perhaps, during that 2016. It became clear that Gans has lost
18 all of his environmental experts support. Gans had intended to call Ferriman if not Gwinn in the
19 2016 SOL trial, however it has now become apparent that Ferrimans credibility has been to deeply
20 damaged for him to appear at all, or to swear to anything under oath and perjury. Gans wrote a false
21 script for them back in 2011, which has now been fully discredited by Remingtons experts, and that
explains why Gans had to abandon all of Blue Rocks expertise, to resort to the desperate use of a
22
new, undamaged and charismatic expert Hillyard, however he is not even admissible in the
23
outstanding 2008 case. It is highly informative, that when Gans decided he wanted to extort
24
Remington and make him afraid going into 2016 trials that defendants could destroy Hoyos and
25
Aveggios testing in the swamp area, Gans neglected to turn to his established environmental
26 experts that had been in the case for six years, and turned to some young unknown expert from
27 Portland, Oregon. The inferences from that act are obvious and will be fully illuminated shortly.
28 841. The RICO defendants conduct violates the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, 28 USC 1961, et seq., with predicate acts of extortion, exaction, bribery, mail
and wire fraud, suborning perjury, money laundering, obstruction of justice, serial witness tampering,
retaliations against Remingtons witnesses and family, improper hauling of hazardous materials, and
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
12
1
deprivations of Remingtons and his businesss rights under 42 USC 1983, among other
2
transgressions all fully disclosed in the RICO statement.
3
842. Additionally, the RICO defendants conduct violated numerous state, county, federal and
4
common-law environmental and the other cited statutes, over which this court may take
5
supplemental jurisdiction, because they all arise out of the same controversy. Said controversy has
6 become worse every year, deeper and now involves numerous additional criminal acts in the
7 perpetuation of its present cover-ups, and corrupt and unjust attempts to utterly destroy and crush
8 Remington and the Burl Tree. Said above violations and crimes resulted in the numerous claims
9 listed herein, and with particularity in the environmental portion of this lawsuit, and include without
10 limitation:
11 843. Multiple acts of specific types of fraud, as fully explained in the more detailed RICO
statement; Unjust enrichment versus restitutionary relief, whereas Remington may recover the
12
greater amount of the two; Intentional and tortious interference with Remingtons contract with
13
SHN by Nelson and Gans, as fully explained in said RICO statement; Trespass to real property and
14
also to business chattels; Continuing public and private NUISANCE; Civil conspiracy; Assault;
15
Extensive, material and felonious spoliation of evidence; State court perjury, which soon must be
16 followed-up consistently with federal discovery and trial perjuries; More than 75 felony
17 vandalisms, other misdemeanor vandalisms and documented destructions of property; Conspiratorial
18 fraudulent concealment; Fraudulent misrepresentation; Fraudulent collusion; Aiding and abetting;
19 Intentional trespass and vandalism employing specifically tamed and trained destructive animals who
20 were intelligently and systematically trained to destroy Remingtons rare gardens and terrorize his
21 wife and grandkids; SCORES of egregious, actionable attorney ethics violations, which seemed very
serious in themselves, for several years, until they extended into and became grossly overshadowed
22
by Gans multiple penal code violations; Multiple fraudulent business practices (B & PC 17,200, et
23
seq.); Prevented and destroyed the Burl Trees right to free and unhampered business conduct, due to
24
Gans Enterprises extortion and RICO schemes.
25
26 PARTIES AND RELEVANT NON-PARTIES
27 A. Plaintiff
28 844. Plaintiff Bruce Remington is the sole owner of the Burl Tree business which owns more
than 90% of the land, personal property, gardens, produce, building, inventory, contents, burlwood,
fixtures, supplies, water rights, scrap iron, machinery, mill equipment, tools, patents, artwork and all
21 2000s always had the most sophisticated oral milling machinery and equipment, the best retail store
locations, delete professional salesman and numerous invaluable exclusive burl logging contracts
22
with all of the large timber companies on the north coast from 1975 until about 1990. Remington also
23
had enormous contracts with Cal-trans and their contractors; the Pelican Bay prison site grubbing
24
contractors; and the Redwood National Park bypass clearing and rubbing contractors.
25
848. The latter group of three contracts provided the Burl Tree with an essentially unlimited
26 quantity of redwood stumps and burls that was so lucrative, that Remington voluntarily gave up his
27 paid exclusive logging contracts with all of the major local area timber companies, during the 1970s
28 and 80s, because he had all of the low-priced burl that he could sell, especially from the Cal-Trans
and Pelican Bay sites. Even today, Remington still has nearly $1 million of Burrell slabs remaining
from the above burl logging activities from 25 years ago.
21 legal and expert team sworn to battle Remington to the death if necessary, while unconditionally
and hopefully destroying and/or were ruining Remington and the Burl Tree in the process. In his
22
deposition, Gans will likely claim that he gets his motivation, determination and anger from John and
23
Joy Mathson, however they are old and tired and not providing much if any direction, anger or
24
emotional leadership in 2016.
25
857. Increasingly, in 2016-17, it is exclusively Gans, the ventriloquist and marionettest who
26 masterminds all of the litigation and enterprise activities. He puts his younger and utterly
27 unscrupulous energy into the Mathsons sham defenses, while literally writing defaults and
28 perjurious scripts for his large group of marionettes and life -sized dummies, not one of which is
2. Ventriloquist acts were very popular and widespread 60-250 years ago, and although originating
3000 years ago, ventriloquist acts are now dying-out rapidly. Marionettes also date back at least 3000
years to Greece and according to Wikipedia, also date back 6000 years to Egypt. Gans puppetry works
the same way, and to date has applied very directly to virtually all of his trial witnesses.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
16
1
believed to be a neutral, independent, honest or actual real objective person. Remington has observed
2
those specific corrupt dynamics everywhere that Gans goes, for example in Gans pluses to experts
3
property investigations of the Burl Tree land, he leads his experts around to see what he wants them
4
to see. The types of contamination that he is arguing do not exist on Remingtons land, he
5
deliberately prevents his experts from taking the paths where they would see that contamination, so
6 that at trial they can plausibly deny that no contamination exists. When Remington says, such as on
7 July 6, 2011, this is the path where we took numerous contaminated samples from a variety of
8 testing sites, Gans inexplicably and without comment takes a different path that avoids all
9 contamination. Simply put, their experts argument can now plausibly be that: they visited the
10 property repeatedly, they saw no contamination, and therefore it does not exist. All Gans experts
11 and percipient witnesses are similarly 100% controlled and scripted by Gans and hence all are
entirely vulnerable on cross-examination or at depositions to a frontal attack regarding the above and
12
any inevitable gross and material inconsistencies going forward. Gans is smart, clever and wily, but
13
his witnesses are much less corrupt, vicious, demonic or motivated and their collusive, consistent
14
perjurious chains have numerous weak links which we intend to attack and exploit.
15
858. Concisely put, Gans put together his crack enterprise team of experts, RAO
16 associated criminals, local Mathson friends who dislike or are envious of Remington, ETC; and, then
17 Gans personally trained them, thoroughly coached them to a totally improper extent, which gravely
18 crossed the line of altering and falsifying witnesses testimony, and then Gans further micro-
19 managed all of the enterprises related day-to-day scheduling, additional coaching sessions and
20 changes in the script which needed to be learned and memorized by all of the conspiratorial
21 witnesses on a given topic. See pages 10-94 and also pages 685-722, approximately, of
Remingtons RICO statement for more very specific details of Gans misconduct, and
22
regarding some of the predicate acts he is accused of committing, with more acts of mail fraud
23
discovered in the files every week or two.
24
859. Gans resides in Eureka, California, at a well-guarded, secret and protected location,
25
continues to hold a California law license, and has been an aspiring partner in Mitchell, Brisso,
26 Delaney and Vrieze for his entire 20-year career now. Gans attended St. Marys College and the
27 University of Oregon law school. Exercise of jurisdiction over Gans is thus reasonable and proper in
28 this district for the reasons set forth below under the category of Personal Jurisdiction.
860. Defendant Ryan Plotz is Gans young, inexperienced legal apprentice, just recently
out of San Jose State University and the Davis law school. Two years of close observations and
numerous written document exchanges prove that Plotz is very nave, learning to be a crooked
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
17
1
lawyer from a master at his craft, and also is totally under Gans corrupt document editing and final
2
proof-reading control, and rarely sends-out a written mail or wire (fraud) word that is not first edited
3
for proper angry, negative and racketeering spin and tone, by Gans. After all of these years, it is
4
quite easy to recognize which paragraphs or sentences in a document was written by or heavily
5
edited by Gans. Plotz never expresses any opinions of his own at oral hearings, sat like an
6 obedient dog beside Gans at approximately 75 consecutive hearings in 2016 alone, very rarely
7 speaking at all, but when he does speak it is only to explain some narrow area of the law which he
8 has partially researched, clearly never fully mastered, and it is always presented in an improper one-
9 sided, slanted entirely self-servingly manner, with most if not all of a Supreme Court cases teaching
10 which is favorable to Remingtons position, invariably omitted as if it did not exist. When Remington
11 calls attention to that fact, both Plotz and Gans just sit there without comment as though Remington
were crazy, and again the inference is that if they do not object to or refute Remingtons statements
12
then they must not be important enough to comment on. Judge Reinholtsen who almost never has the
13
time to read the source documents obviously leans heavily on his officers of the court for legal
14
guidance through the California case precedent law. That has been a big mistake, has led to many
15
errors by the court, which should easily be overturned on appeal. Similar to the above, and as
16 discussed in more detail below, exercise of jurisdiction over Ryan Plotzs reasonable, proper and just
17 as set forth below under personal jurisdiction.
18 861. Defendant Paul A. Brisso is another counsel of record in the various Remington v.
19 Mathson lawsuits and also in the former, retaliatory extortive sham lawsuit called Mathson v.
20 Remington which defendants dropped in early 2016 what it looked like it might actually go to trial, is
21 explained in detail in the RICO statement. Although deferring to Gans with respect to most operating
enterprise tactical, personnel and corrupt witness tampering and obstruction of justice trial decisions,
22
Brisso still plays a major and a very important role here, like a Chairman of the Board or Emeritus
23
advisor to the organization. Brisso also has deep influence within all departments of county
24
government, from the courts through the Health Department bureaucracies, enjoys wielding that
25
power as necessary to benefit Gans and his clients, as explained in detail in the RICO Statement.
26 Especially in 2008-2011, Brisso appeared at a lot of our state and federal case hearings and wrote
27 several hundred pages of largely, but not entirely, mischaracterized, false or otherwise misleading
28 motion documents corruptly supporting state case special motion attorney fees and falsely and
inconsistently arguing that Remingtons federal case should be dismissed because the state case was
earlier andBecause state issues predominated, which estopped positions were naturally improperly
21 has appeared in these case documents with some regularity since at least 2011, and If Kloppell really
does not know what Gans is presently doing, he should know, should have known, and he obviously
22
does know now after being served as a RICO defendant. If Remington was able to figure this out
23
from 6 miles away, Kloeppel could have figured it out more easily from 30 feet away. Kloeppel may
24
be a little slow, but he is not stupid, he has worked side-by-side with Gans for many years and is
25
believed to know about as much about this RICO enterprise as anyone not named Gans.
26
866. Kloeppel works there, he knows Gans very well, he socializes with Gans and probably
27 eats lunch with him several times a week. Therefore, he knows about Gans lack of ethics, laziness,
28
3. Four of the worst ABA ranked law schools in the US are in California. McGeorge escaped that
list and is only in the bottom 2.7% overall, and ranked 146 of 150 in the United States by Biz Journal.
Further according to Remingtons five minutes of research, McGeorge is expensive, apparently
located in the Sacramento area, only 73% of its graduates are employed and most shockingly only
64% ever pass the bar exam which is the worst of any known law school, etc.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
19
1
false logic and overall mental and intellectual inability to function at the highest level of Californias
2
advocacy system. As an attorney with an office a few feet from Gans he is held to a higher standard
3
than most, and he will certainly be investigated for complicity and what he does know about this
4
racketeering enterprise or, as above, should have known, at a minimum. Since Remington is a
5
foremost scholar on Gans advocacy methods and records, therefore understands Gans very well,
6 and knows about all of his illicit criminal activity, pre-criminal activity and extremely unethical
7 behavior before that since October 2007, then it follows that it would be more than logical to assume
8 that Kloeppel also knows at least that much, by now. Maybe Kloeppel can convince civil or criminal
9 investigatory authorities that he is just dumb, naive, a bit slow, overly trusting and/or totally
10 innocent, however after a thorough analysis and consideration of specific deceptive and false
11 documents signed by Kloeppel since 2011, it seems obvious to Remington that Kloeppel should now
have to come forward with what he DOES know and exonerate himself, because right now he
12
appears to be guilty before he is proven innocent. He is an officer of the court, not Remington and
13
when discovery or investigations begin here, a non-Eureka lawyer might think that he should be
14
held to the high ethical standards envisioned in the California ethics laws including, without
15
limitation, CCP 128.7.
16 A. Similar to those above and below (see Personal Jurisdiction section below), jurisdiction
17 over Kloeppel is reasonable and proper in this district because he resides in Eureka California.
18 867. Defendant the law offices of Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney and Vrieze is believed to be a
19 California legal partnership, which according to their website (still) proudly serves the Northern
20 California community and ironically has a mission to adhere to the highest standards of
21 integrity and professional ethics to clients.. Apparently that was written long before the current
bunch was involved in a RICO enterprise, and eventually some of that bogus self-serving crap may
22
have to be edited.
23
868. In that regard, the founders of this firm in the 1940s, some of which Remington believes
24
he had contact with back in the early 1980s, were clearly a different much more ETHICAL breed
25
and they would not be pleased at all about having this enterprise centered in the inter-sanctums of
26 their modest offices at 814 7th St., PO drawer 1008, Eureka, CA 95502. At age 75, apparently
27 Remington is now of that former breed, and a strong built-in moral compass is kind of hard to
28 eliminate, however it is safe to say that the modern Mitchell firm has managed to overcome that
obstacle (of renouncing and then stomping on good old-fashioned ethics) very nicely.
869. Similarly, the Mitchell firm (above) is considered to be a citizen of this California
northern district and jurisdiction is therefore reasonable and proper, as further set forth a few pages
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
20
1
below under Personal Jurisdiction. Because probably 30-40% of the said Mitchell firm is likely
2
unaware of Gans corruption or the details of the Remington cases, it would appear to be up to
3
them, NOT Remington to determine the individual culpability of each member of the firm, when
4
fines or other sentences are ultimately levied.
5
870. Linda Lawrence is still believed to be a Western regional claims manager for Allied
6 Casualty and Insurance located at 1100 Locust St. Des Moines, Iowa, 50391. Her office is
7 believed to be located at or in the vicinity of 2251 Harvard St., Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95815,
8 and she has handled the Gans/Mitchell/Mathson account for many years in the 2008-2012 range and
9 presumably she still does. If not, that will be discovered shortly, and whoever the new comparable
10 account executive should perhaps be substituted for Lawrence, although more likely, BOTH are
11 probably knowledgeable, culpable and corruptly guilty of the federal predicate acts alleged in the
RICO statement.
12
871. Lawrence, and/or her assistants, counterparts or subsequent replacement has paid for
13
every illicit scheme that Gans conjures up, and when Remington met her personally, she was young,
14
mildly attractive, smart, sophisticated, cocky and obviously personally motivated to save her
15
employer money at all costs, in order to accomplish their objectives of crushing the arrogant
16 Remington. Remington met her in about 2010, and she was very easy to size-up. Actually,
17 remembering the five-minute interaction she had with Remington in 2010 was where the idea of
18 CRUSHING Remington like a bug originated. She was entirely dismissive then, and obviously
19 assumed Remington had no chance to survive against their brilliant defense backed with infinite
20 financial resources. Maybe she was right, but maybe well see.
21 872. Ms. Lawrence is a smart and sophisticated manager who knows, should know, and also
should have known all along that Gans is as corrupt and unlawful as a $13 bill. However,
22
considerable written and then oral discovery will be needed to determine if she is a criminal herself
23
or just another innocent, too busy, naive, overly trusting of the great Gans, merely a pretty face
24
and well-meaning, very ambitious insurance executive, just paying all the bills submitted
25
automatically because she has absolute trust in Gans and the Mitchell firms ethics and integrity, so
26 does not give their analysts and criminal requests for reimbursements close scrutiny or any
27 understanding. Probably the latter will be her defensive posture, but will that fly credibly with
28 criminal investigators? After eight years of associations, Remington knows that she is no dumb
bimbo and in all probability is the overall corrupt mastermind behind their determined goal to
crush Remington indiscriminately, no matter what it takes. Remingtons impression of her in 2010
was that ethics, honesty and/or justice were not on her radar screen, nor much of a concern, if any.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
21
1
873. As discussed in the RICO statement, she reminds Remington somewhat of Steven
2
Spielbergs secretary Bonnie Curtis who was a nice, kind, not unusual California high-energy type
3
woman, with a pretty face probably, but who actually was the brains of the Amblin Entertainment
4
and Spielberg operation, on many high-powered and significant issues. Eventually, within a few
5
years of Remingtons interactions with her she went on to produce her own hundred million dollar
6 budget films, which kind of inferred that she was never just a clerk-typist type from the beginning.
7 Lawrence resides in California and hence jurisdiction over her personally is reasonable and
8 proper as further specified below under the section entitled Personal Jurisdiction.
9 874. RAO Construction Company, Inc, has offices located at 5503 Walnut Dr. Cutten,
10 CA 95503, and owner Rich Olson also is believed to live in that immediate area, as part of a
11 vast residential complex he built around 2000.
875. Whether RAO and Olson are incorporated or not today is unknown, but they may well
12
have been in 1998 when these disputes originated, and inferentially, based on Klucks occasional
13
sporadic communications, they are still today. Immediate discovery will probe the present-day
14
structure of Olsons concrete and general construction company, and by the time of the FAC in this
15
case we will sue them properly, if there are any errors in their present designation. RAOs entity
16 number is C0725703. See further details about Olson and RAO around page 110 of Remingtons
17 RICO statement, and see also the next section below.
18 876. RAO was believed to be the acting entity in many of the crimes and transgressions alleged
19 herein, but whether it is actually separate in any significant legal respect from Rich Olson is
20 presently unknown, so for the time being we name both of them and sue them jointly, herein.
21 A. RAO, corp is considered to be a citizen of this California northern district and
jurisdiction over it, as well as over Olson and Skillings to follow, is therefore reasonable and proper
22
as further set forth a few pages below under Personal Jurisdiction.
23
877. Rich Olson, Owner of RAO Construction Company, described above.
24
Olson, along with his early partner John Mathson almost single-handedly created this mess
25
around 1998, which is just being fully discovered today, and has not yet been resolved at all.
26 878. Olson created an astoundingly large, flagrant industrial-sized illegal hazardous residential
27 waste dump, entirely for unlawful and unjust profits. Originally they dumped it on Massons
28 property but quickly there was so much of the hazardous debris which were too nasty for the
Mathsons to have under their lawns for their grandkids to play on top of, so early on Skillings began
meticulously sorting every adverse object with a huge loader, and put all of the worst toxins, which
11 about 25 years and presently resides at 2401 Circle, Briarwood, Eureka, CA 95503-7510, See also
Remingtons RICO statement pages 163-171.
12
881.As discussed throughout these documents, Skillings is Olsons and Gans primary criminal
13
enforcer today, potentially the Luca Brassi (The Godfather films primary murderer and purveyor of
14
torture or other extreme violence) of this enterprise, although day-to-day John Mathson and his local
15
neighborhood Westgate gang are the main criminals, enforcers and lower-level extorter, working
16 directly under Gans leadership. Mathson, Kishpaugh, Evans, Costa, et al always operate
17 clandestinely, cowardly and commit their frequent criminal vandalistic, destructive and thieving acts
18 while they know Remington is asleep or away from the property; although, Remingtons cameras
19 never sleep these days, which fact will already eventually lead to the criminal conviction of John
20 Mathson.
21 882. Skillings is a mean-looking, physically tough, 250-pound linebacker type, serious and
heavy-weight extorter, previous violent offender and potentially very violent criminal. Bob Figas
22
is about as tough a logging boss and equipment operator as you could find in Humboldt County and
23
manages a crew of more than 100 men off in the remote eastern Trinity Alps mountains, for months
24
at a time. Men that do that type of work are about as tough as you can find in Humboldt County
25
these days.
26 883. All you really need to know about Skillings is that he has several times seriously scared,
27 intimidated, blackmailed and extorted Bob Figas to protect his, RAOs and Mathsons 1998-2000+
28 buried criminal secrets, and so far he has brilliantly succeeded. Skillings was extensively and well-
coached by Gans prior to the August 2016 SOL trial where he committed extensive perjury as
described in the RICO statement passages cited. That perjury was inexplicably allowed to stand by
Judge Reinholtsen in said SOL trial, but can be refuted in the federal trial now that we know what
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
23
1
his lies are, and what extensive conclusive 2003 photographic evidence we have that refutes said
2
perjury 100%. Skillings has committed federal predicate acts of extortion already, but has not yet
3
perjured himself or otherwise colluded to obstruct justice in this federal case, however that will be
4
calm a necessity immediately when he responds to Remingtons first written discovery request. By
5
the time of his deposition, Skillings for example will probably have violated at least a dozen federal
6 laws just within 2017 alone. Since Skillings resides in California and likely always has, therefore,
7 jurisdiction over him here is reasonable and proper as further described below under the section
8 called Personal Jurisdiction.
9 884. Defendant John Mathson, approximately age 70 is the secondary villain in the story,
10 FAR-BELOW Gans, but, at least as of March 1, 2017, far-above all of the other named defendants
11 in both portions of this lawsuit. Mathson has become a bitter, obsessed, constantly lurking evil
presence, exactly like Gollum in the Tolkien Trilogy, constantly watching Remington, peering and
12
peeping out of the shadows, from behind huge trees or through his multiple secret doors built into
13
his fence, and he has become much bolder, more brazen and much more desperate each year. What
14
he will do in 2017 is now of considerable dread and trepidation, even to Bruce Remington. As
15
to the rest of Remingtons closest family, Gans enterprise has already WON there and all of them
16 are essentially too afraid, uneasy or simply too terrified to get any enjoyment out of Remingtons
17 massive rose gardens, extensive toy inventory and endless paths to play on, so they dont come over.
18 Remington has most likely largest rose gardens north of Southern California, but thats not enough
19 to get his family over here. Gans has won! His extortion has succeeded in causing great fear and all
20 of Remingtons family, such that only Bruce Remington himself still has the courage to show-up at
21 832 Westgate Dr.
885. Mathson now as a matter of course, calmly and solemnly lies convincingly under oath,
22
which makes him by definition pathologically excellent liar. He is always watching Remingtons
23
property, lurking-around, occasionally taking surprise flash photographs in the semi-darkness and is
24
always watching for something prejudicial to attempt to use against Remington at a trial. In that
25
regard, Mathson continuously follows Remington around the property, endlessly and without
26 apparent purpose, somewhat reminiscent of a said-above pathological Gollum, gone bad. In August
27 2016, Mathson slipped-up and entirely contradicted his multiple lies, with a brief lapse into the
28 truth, all wall he was under oath, but Remington was unable to make it stick significantly with the
jury, the first time around. However, Remington expects to have many other opportunities to
conclusively develop and to prove the John Mathson is a serial vandal, burglar, local gang-leader,
drug dealer, massive perjurer and career criminal, who belongs in Pelican Bay prison right now.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
24
1
886. Beyond the scope in this condensed document, Mathson is also a kleptomaniac with a
2
yard full of equipment, proudly stolen from his longtime former employer Samoa pulp mill.
3
Mathson is Remingtons northern neighbor who arguably single-handedly caused this entire
4
problem in dispute in 1998 with some assistance from Olson, Skillings and RAO construction.
5
887. Mathson has lived in Humboldt County all of his life still resides here at 778 Westgate
6 Dr., immediately north of Remington with whom we share a 330-foot long property boundary.
7 Hence, jurisdiction over him here is reasonable and proper as further described below under the
8 Personal Jurisdiction Section. [See Volume III, photo exhibits #54-55 for evidence removal]
9 888. RICO Defendant Jeff Nelson is the grisly old, nasty, generally-disliked CEO and one-
10 time civil engineer that leads SHN consulting, which is located at 812 West Wabash Ave., Eureka,
11 CA 95501 2138. Nelson directly employed and worked with Remingtons two foremost
environmental engineering consultants from 2009-2012. Then under enterprise duress, beginning in
12
2012, he sabotaged Remingtons entire litigation strategy by maliciously and deliberately breaching
13
our valid long-time contract by removing Mike Foget from Remingtons litigation support team, after
14
John Aveggios death. However, there was no direct connection between Aveggios death and Fogets
15
illegal and corrupt removal from Remingtons environmental trial expert team, because Foget was
16 employed here and paid by Remington for about two years before Nelson abruptly, unexpectedly and
17 summarily removed Foget from Remingtons case without any provocation or reason provided.
18 Clearly, as developed above and in the RICO statement, all incorporated by reference here, Gans and
19 his enterprise interceded and very prejudicially destroyed Remingtons entire environmental
20 litigation support team, almost costing him his entire environmental case. Nelson is an individual
21 residing at an unknown, secret location in Eureka, California, with the apparent intention of
remaining here indefinitely, and hence jurisdiction over him is reasonable and proper, as further
22
described in the Personal Jurisdiction section.
23
MAJOR NON-PARTY CO-CONSPIRATORS
24
889. Certain other non-party individuals, business entities and employees thereof played roles,
25
directly or indirectly, in Gans scheme to defraud, extort, steal from and destroy Remington, his
26 family and the Burl Tree. Foremost among those individuals and business entities, as based on the
27 enterprises cognizable operations over the last four years, but before any actual federal discovery
28 here, include without limitation the following4:
4. See number three (#3) of Remingtons RICO statement, dated January 2017 for a more complete
listing of so-far known additional wrongdoers, including various salient details about their
involvement, alleged criminal activity and the relationship to Remington and the Burl Trees damages.
See also footnotes 35-36 in the main environmental complaint for identification of all defendants.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
25
1
890. Morgan Randall is a California resident and believed to be a present employee at
2
Peirsons Hardware Company. Randall once rented a house across the street from Remington in
3
approximately the early 1990s; Wherein, he vandalized Remingtons standing timber, stole firewood,
4
violated various neighborly promises and agreements that he made to Remington, while Remington
5
was away from the sites, and generally made himself an unwelcome pest on the street, as fully
6 explained in the RICO statement and complaints.
7 891. It now appears, that Mathson was his friend, even way back then, and Gans apparently
8 found him while looking for all of Mathsons friends who could provide any kind of additional false
9 testimony about any aspect of these lawsuits. Although Gans has not disclosed any aspect of what he
10 will testify about and also blocked Remingtons reasonable deposition request in May 2016,
11 Remington has inferred from discussions about him that he will provide additional false testimony, in
conjunction with Mathsons corrupt Westgate gang discussed herein, about his perception of
12
irrelevant conditions on Remingtons land hundreds of feet away from anything with any possible
13
material cause or effect on these lawsuits.
14
892. Additionally, Randall may have misinformation on the six-inch perforated or solid black
15
corrugated drainpipe which Gans apparently has bribed him to testify incompletely and/or falsely
16 about. Whether Randall may have sold Mathson, Olson or anyone 6-inch diameter perforated pipe in
17 1998 or any year has absolutely no scientific effect on the fact that the relevant and very important
18 pipe at issue, that is plainly visible in the ground today is solid by inspection. The significance of
19 this twin pipes issue and why Gans has written false and perjurious scripts for Mathson, Randall, all
20 of his environmental experts plus himself has been fully explained in the environmental complaint
21 and also in the RICO statement. There is no more important scientific, ethical or factual issue in
these cases than the verifiable fact visible in the ground at any time, that said twin pipes are solid and
22
not perforated. Hence they do not serve the purpose which Gans and his experts need and have sworn
23
to. Remington has a lot more to say on this issue, but will save it for Randalls, and others, written
24
discovery, depositions or cross-examinations under oath, where severe obstruction, witness
25
tampering and related lying under oath federal laws will be instantly violated during federal
26 discovery proceedings if any of the RICO enterprise members attempt to be consistent with their
27 false state testimony, as they now must be. Consequently, a federal prison term should now be the
28 price of following Gans perjury instructions and coaching on many of these issues involving
Randall, the twin pipes as well as several dozen related issues.
893. Randall was reputed by various Wilber sources and others to have been a prominent
member of Mathsons notorious, highly obnoxious, offensive and public nuisance-causing alcohol
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
26
1
and drug ring in the very early 1990s, which later morphed into and involved the MD Tree
2
Services owners methamphetamine ring described elsewhere. M.D rented a house directly across
3
from the Mathsons, and 3-4 houses down from Randall, for several years around and after 2000 and
4
caused many problems locally.
5
894. Defendants John and Mickee Kishpaugh have been named here previously, in October-
6 November drafts of this RICO complaint, but then were reasonably, properly and justly removed
7 because the only federal crimes we can prove so far involve state perjury, so we will firm-that-up in
8 federal discovery, easily convert it and their other crimes into a federal predicate act and then
9 undoubtably list them in the RICO FAC. Jon Kishpaugh remains as an environmental defendant
10 based on his environmental contamination and related activities described in the RICO statement.
11 The Kishpaughs are very close, long-time friends of the defendant Mathsons, who are willing to
commit perjury, and literally by actual proofs, say or do anything to support that friendship. They
12
have lied under oath already and previously lied to Remington about their extensive pollution
13
activities and dumping on his property prior to about 2003. We will develop their false narrative and
14
perjurious story about Remington and these properties during their federal deposition, or at the next
15
jury trial in any forum in such a manner that federal predicate acts will be violated next time.
16 Whether Mickee Kishpaugh intends to backup and support her husbands extensive and silly state
17 multiple trial perjuries remains to be seen, but she will soon have an opportunity to either tell the
18 truth or to become deeply implicated in the RICO conspiracy, where today she is not even an
19 ancillary enterprise member. See RICO statement for details about Mickees observed clandestine
20 guilty flights at twilight, and inferred thefts of something from the neighborhood that she was guiltily
21 and hurriedly carrying into her house in a large black plastic bag, which will be related to all of this
interrogation at the proper time.
22
895. Both Kishpaughs are desperately poor, need money in the worst way and will testify, for
23
money, to anything that Gans requests, as they did in August 2016, see RICO statement for additional
24
details, at 3D. Perjury means nothing to Jon, especially, and he has proved that over the years to
25
Remington at 5-6 year intervals. See Rico Statement 221-226/
26 896. Next time we examine Kishpaugh we will set the foundation to prove that he was one of
27 the major, long-time contaminators of Remingtons ravine and also Remington Creek, lied about that
28 and all of the other related facts in August 2016, including that he saw Remington not once but
TWICE talking to Mathson on his land in 1998, at least five (5) years before Remington went
anywhere near Mathsons yard in that manner sworn to. Next time Remington will have several more
years of sworn discovery to argue and prove that point with real evidence, not Kishpaughs BS, little
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
27
1
nervous laughs and big lies.
2
897. Next time, Remington faces Kishpaugh he will be facing federal criminal charges and
3
federal prison time if he attempts to repeat his false state trial in federal discovery, or trials, and
4
therefore he is expected to be more circumspect, less certain and a lot more truthful next time, and he
5
would also appear to be a likely candidate to reverse position and go straight with the DA in
6 Eureka, when he is imminently investigated. Potentially he or his wife could exonerate him, or both
7 of them, before they bury themselves in really serious imprisonable perjury. Is Mickee really going to
8 attempt to back-up ALL of Jons illogical and ridiculous (provable) lies and state perjury and also
9 subject herself to possible imprisonment if Gans entire house of cards or dominoes suddenly
10 collapses, as expected, imminent, and sooner rather than later?
11 898. Personally, Remington hopes they do so, and that they do not hopelessly dig their hole
deeper, and bury themselves further. The Kishpaughs are not bad people really, with their enviable
12
very close friendship with their wonderful friends the Mathsons, which is very touching.
13
Previously in 2016 they have both proven their dedicated willingness to do anything or say
14
anything to help Gans enterprise, especially if they can also kill two birds with one stone and
15
absolutely screw and preferably destroy their long-time hated enemy Remington. Their enmity was
16 simply caused by Remingtons eventual refusal to let them turn his Westgate property at the source of
17 Remington Creek into a toxic waste dump, because the Kishpaughs were too lazy and tight to
18 dump their trash and waste into the county disposal system. Remington merely refused to let them
19 dump their debris on his property and contaminate his Creek forever, after they had done it for route
20 15-years without his direct knowledge or permission, and apparently believed that it was their God-
21 given, estopped-right by some sort of easement to continue those illegal dumping acts forever, just
so they could avoid paying for an extra garbage can every couple of weeks. Kishpaugh lied about all
22
that in August 2016, and if he persists along that perjurious false Gans track with that total lying
23
BS in the federal case, he is going to face various witnesses which will eventually prove to the jury
24
that he lied under oath in a federal proceeding.
25
899. Although Remington did not really ever notice the rather inauspicious Kishpaughs
26 operation and yard, except for the neighborhood nuisance they caused for over 20 years, with all the
27 noisy old vehicles they continuously worked-on in their driveway, it is believed they moved here
28 about 22 years ago from out of the area, but are presumably California residents. Although their
house has been foreclosed for nonpayment and they owe about $65,000 on it, the fact that they are
still occupying it today infers that they are once again paying rent to someone, and will now probably
remain here indefinitely. As discussed above at number 893, the Kishpaughs are both believed to be
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
28
1
part of Mathsons and MDs old alcohol and drug ring, although Mathson claimed under oath that he
2
stopped drinking several years ago, but can you believe a psychopathic liar on that? Said
3
Kishpaughs also were a long time public nuisance when they had a highly obnoxious, amateur
4
country music band, with noisy, drunken, live-amplified instrument playing and bad singing at late
5
night hours, that seriously disturbed the neighborhood virtually every night for many years in the
6 1990s. Their constant and annoying starting and stopping, adjusting the volume of their amplifiers
7 and negative feedback noises were very exasperating going on for many hours in many continuous
8 nights, until they were eventually either fired from their gig, if they ever had one, or were closed
9 down by the county after multiple late night noise complaints, and never played for pay at all at some
10 local bar. We dont know what happened to that nasty, amateurish country racket, but in any event
11 that noisy-racket and talentless nuisance stopped several years ago, after an approximately 10-year
nuisance, which incidentally Remington never complained to the Sheriff about, for some
12
neighborly reason.
13
900. Likely future federal RICO defendant Joy Mathson, is well-established criminal
14
felon John Mathsons wife, and she is heavily implicated here because she knows every criminal act
15
which he commits, condones and applauds them. Joy is full of hate which helps to motivate Gans,
16
however, very significantly here now, she does have a certain degree of known trouble lying,
17 unlike virtually all of the others named herein. She was very clearly well-prepared to lie in August
18 2016, as explained in the RICO statement, however neither side actually called her as a witness, so
19 she got a gigantic break. For her, that was a HUGE blessing (from God?), so that now in her
20 imminent federal deposition she is not yet locked-in to all of the coached and collusive lies sworn to
21 by John Mathson and defendants other witnesses in August 2016. Maybe Gans will now write a
more truthful script for her, if she insists on it herself. More probably, she will now prudently attempt
22
to plead ignorance, and not be so positive that the wonderful John was absolutely correct and
23
truthful and that the obvious OGRE, that all her friends agree about, Remington, is in fact the
24
psychopathic liar, and not John. We all know that she is one of the principal masterminds here,
25
however alternatively, she may plead husband-wife privilege in order to try to shield herself from
26
federal perjury charges. Whatever she does, it will be complex because she will be deposed at great
27 length about a lot of things and how deeply she buries yourself and federal charges remains to be
28 seen and at this moment is entirely within her discretionary control. Personally, Remington hopes she
chooses wisely. Remington does not know if she is a religious person, which is very doubtful,
however if she is, she still has a chance to do the right thing here after all these years and after
21 is now indemnifying a well-known major, Northcoast long-time, criminal polluter and Kluck has
been extremely passively representing him doing just enough improper advocacy to keep RAO just
22
barely out of default in 2014, in DR140426, not yet active. RAO, et al are named DOE defendants in
23
DR 080678, still in progress and the fact that Remington just ignores Kluck in that case because he
24
gets 100% of his motion documents directly from Gans, is direct proof of Kluck, RAOs and said
25
above insurers involvement with the RICO enterprise, if not directly implicated in its objectives and
26 day-to-day criminal functioning. Kluck is already alleged to have committed several preliminary
27 predicate acts in the RICO statement, but said above insurer has not, nor has any information yet
28 been discovered about them.
903. It is not yet even known for sure whether Kluck is actually paid by an insurance company
as opposed to Olson directly. However, very inferentially, since Kluck is always so beyond laid-back
and very obviously not worrying about whether he is going to get paid or not, Remington is
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
30
1
positive that there is yet another insurer involved here, with more to join-in shortly. Otherwise, we
2
would have seen Olson at least once in these proceedings, if he was paying for any of this, and there
3
would be some tiny semblance of a hint of urgency on the part of those RAO defendants. So far, as
4
explained above and elsewhere at length, Skillings who has been thus-far controlled only by Gans, is
5
the only one who has shown any emotion, exclusively hostility; or any fire or motivation to destroy
6 Remington completely, by whatever means he finds convenient.
7 904. Whether said above insurer and Kluck are now going to try to take over and tame the
8 tiger Skillings, and therefore be responsible for whatever criminal or murderous act he may commit
9 next, will be interesting to note. If nothing else, this RICO statement informs Kluck and whatever
10 insurance company that is paying him, that they are going to be deeply implicated in Gans RICO
11 racketeering enterprise almost instantly after this is filed and discovery begins, see also RICO
statement 3B. Also, they will certainly be fully responsible for any criminally violent acts committed
12
by Olson or Skillings going forward.
13
905. Ignorance is now no excuse. Not only should they have known, but they are
14
specifically and directly put on notice herein, such that they now do know exactly what is going on
15
here and where the path which Gans has been leading them on now for several years has been and
16 is rapidly going next, and also exactly where Klucks observed very close, friendly and personal
17 association with Gans, and all of the Mitchell firm members is now uncontrollably leading them all.
18 906. Near, but as yet unnamed RICO enterprise defendant Blue Rock Environmental is
19 Gans original environmental engineering expert firm. However, they are now so discredited with
20 respect to their dozens of false statements sworn to in numerous 2011 declarations and two different
21 lawsuits, which were obviously deceitfully written for them by nonscientist Gans, that it is presumed
that they have refused to testify further in these cases. That was all before this RICO lawsuit which
22
implicates them directly so now it would appear they would need to be suicidal to continue under
23
Gans corrupt racketeering leadership, through Federal discovery and a first substantive trial on the
24
merits. Theres no way that they can now gracefully talk their way out of their perjurers webs which
25
have been spun by Gans since 2010. Mark Ferriman is their chief worker with some small
26 semblance of integrity, and perhaps even justice, and now seems to Remington that it would be
27 impossible for him to come in now and testify under oath that he made no prior errors and that
28 therefore he should be fully or at all believed by a jury. He cant really do that and Remington
believes that therefore he wont. Therefore they hired a new young guy, Hillyard, to try to undo some
of the damage caused by Blue Rocks deceptions, however none of Hillyards work has been admitted
into evidence nor is it likely to ever be, so Gans is still stuck with Blue Rock for the indefinite future.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
31
1
907. Similarly, Brian Gwinn has all of the educational and licensing credentials, because
2
Ferriman has zero, but he has proven himself to be entirely useless, inept, error-prone, corrupt and
3
like Ferriman, it may be inferred that there is no way he could ever overcome his stick test or his
4
deliberate and knowing, fraudulent volume of the fill errors, which are off by at least 800%. An 800%
5
error is really hard to do. Although his education is very marginal, as compared to Remingtons
6 experts, and his math background is negligible and presumably entirely nonexistent, nevertheless the
7 magnitude of his errors can only be caused by intentional fraud. Said fraud was undoubtably scripted
8 and demanded by Gans enterprise, however Gwinn is smart enough to understand how he was
9 misused by Gans, in Gans continuing successful corrupt attempts to defraud Remington and several
10 courts. The fact that Gwinns and Gans frauds succeeded in the federal magistrates court has
11 emboldened them, but certainly has not exonerated either of them in future discovery and in the next
trials, whether federal or state. See more at RICO statement 3C.
12
908. Matthew Hillyard from Farallon Corporation, out of Portland, Oregon is Gans
13
newest replacement expert for Blue Rocks above discredited environmental experts, and is at least
14
their fourth or fifth environmental consultant in these cases. Gans requires someone crooked,
15
unethical and someone who just basically is looking for a paycheck, who will sign-off on his illicit
16 theories and fraudulent dynamics, and inferentially Hillyard is just such a whore, however that will
17 not be fully confirmed until his deposition. Hillyard appears to look the part, which is Gans chief
18 objective, and if he also can sound like he knows what the hell hes doing then hes good to go.
19 However, if he is going to rely on Blue Rocks fraudulent out-of-time testing, and all of their other
20 numerous false statements on all case issues, sworn to in all of their declarations, too numerous to
21 outline here, but fully described in the RICO statement; then, Hillyard is going to have big problems
quickly after he disingenuously responds to his first federal discovery request, pursuant to Gans
22
false scripts which are based on Blue Rocks incompetent reports and false declarations. See RICO
23
statement number 3P, for much more on all of this, which is again incorporated by reference as if
24
fully set forth here.
25
909. Kiff Analytical laboratories of Davis California deliberately falsified the Blue Rock test
26 results from Mathsons land in 2010 to grossly understate the toxicity there, and very importantly to
27 therefore inferentially grossly understate the contamination existing on both properties. The simple
28 fraudulent method they used of running their scientific testing FAR out-of-holding time was fully
documented and demonstrated by John Aveggio during his deposition on July 1, 2011, at pages 86-92
to Gans great chagrin. Hopefully, Mr. Kiff will appear at one of our trials, by subpoena.
It is not rocket science that if you take hydrocarbon water or soil samples on Mathsons
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
32
1
property and then set them on a hot southern California shelf at 120-180 degrees Fahrenheit for 6-
2
8 weeks as defendants did in this case, then much if not all of the hydrocarbons will volatilize
3
during that time and the results submitted by the laboratory will show evidence of MUCH less
4
hydrocarbons than what were in the original samples taken on Mathsons property. We dont know
5
exactly how much less yet, but 100 to 500% less would be expected. In any event, none of
6 defendants minimal testing results on Mathsons land were competent, relevant or of any use in
7 these cases it all, and Esko fully relied upon them.
8 910. Cal-Science Environmental Laboratories, now called EuroFins Cal science, of Garden
9 Grove, California participated in executing the above fraudulent plot, by getting samples from
10 Eureka, Blue Rock and Kiff labs and then holding them improperly and scientifically fraudulently
11 until their hydrocarbon content had full volatilized and dissipated.
A. As explained above, that produces known to be substantially fraudulent and incompetent
12
results, which their experts absolutely knew about, yet they propounded them as part of the
13
Enterprises racketeering scheme and objectives for many years.
14
911.Two different courts plus Remington and his experts relied upon said above incompetent
15
Kiff-Cal-Science test results for about two years which was very damaging monetarily, scientifically
16 and timing-wise with respect to which tests we did, where and why. Therefore, as a direct result of
17 said above incompetent testing, Remington and SHN failed to timely test in certain areas until too
18 late in 2011 to be admissible into the DR 080668 trial, which is a highly prejudicial situation.
19 911. Gary Costa is a former retired, long-time fellow Samoa pulp mill union member and
20 very close-confidant and very long time friend of John Mathson. His false testimony in August 2016
21 was quite creatively crafted by Gans to implausibly and ridiculously involve a supposed, very
contrived, birthday 18-years ago that he recalls like it was yesterday, because he bought some
22
plant on that day. Remington has bought more than 10,000 such plants, many of which were BIG,
23
impressive and bought 3-10 at a time in the beginning, yet although he vaguely remembers some of
24
the blurred general circumstances about the environment in possibly 1 in 100 of those instances,
25
Remington certainly does not recall the day of the week or the month, or even the year to the nearest
26 3-5 years in any of the instances.
27 912. Costa obviously did not remember anything either, he just was able to proficiently present
28 his lines to the jury which Gans had scripted for him, and they fell for it. He seemed rather sheepish
and apologetic throughout his testimony, which was entirely false and Remington will never rest
until that perjury is somehow at least partially brought to justice.
913. Listening to him there, and unable to shake his slow honest-appearing demeanor, but also
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
33
1
understanding that he was absolutely lying about something that had never occurred ever on any
2
day, it became obvious to Remington that he will lie again, about anything, and everything as
3
needed. For example, if Remington is murdered, hell provide an alibi for the murderer and then tie it
4
also to a birthday, Christmas, anniversary, one of his kids birthdays, etc., or some other notable event
5
to prove that it was true. Conversely, if one of the defendants is injured or murdered, Costa would
6 be the first person they would call to swear that Remington committed the murder and Costa
7 absolutely saw him do it. Therefore, Costa provides this criminal enterprise with a valuable service
8 and he may be important going forward.
9 914. One of Remingtons witnesses Jim Wilber alleged that he is another part of the prominent
10 Westgate amphetamine, marijuana and related drug-ring centered at Mathsons residence over
11 various different years. As explained in the RICO statement, there was a large group of Mathsons
initially alcoholic drinking buddies in the 1990s, which included essentially all of their trial
12
witnesses including Gary Evans, Hilfiker, Randall and others that have been deposed and/or who
13
may or may not be called or involved with this drug and other substance abuse ring, over many
14
years. Many of whom, and probably most of whom, have since moved from this street and/or area.
15
The M.D. Tree Service family, explained in the RICO statement were prominent members of
16 that drug ring from about 1997-2005 approximately, focused on meth-amphetamines, and when they
17 left that rental house, the local drug activity, at least what was overtly public, has been reduced
18 somewhat, except for the conspicuous late-night comings and goings of swarthy, hyper- active,
19 and/or the opposite sluggish, generally spaced-out, non-local, out-of- place looking visitors at
20 the Kishpaughs residence, and also at the Mathsons to a lesser degree.
21 915. Melissa Martel has been the Director of the County of Humboldt, Environmental
Health Division for several years during these lawsuits and may still be today, however that is not
22
absolutely known.
23
916. As explained in considerable detail in the RICO statement at 3H, approximately pages
24
186-190, and not repeated again here, Ms. Martell has simply put, inexplicably obfuscated,
25
dragged-her feet and essentially has never taken Remingtons offensive cases here seriously since
26 about 2009, despite her several investigators assurances that the county would be highly concerned
27 about these contaminated sites and would be ordering their cleanup. That has never occurred or
28 even close to it.
917. As concluded at 3H, Ms. Martell has acted very strangely in these cases and certainly
appears to be entirely under the strong influence and total control of Brisso and Gans, perhaps
10 treat Remington perfunctorily and with mild irritation and ill-will, and very often borderline bad
11 faith. In other words, neither Candy B nor Liz Smith necessarily stand out from other file room
court clerks who like to pick on and prejudice Pro Per litigants, therefore much more discovery is
12
needed here. By way of contrast, during most of 2016, Remington was able to by-pass the file room
13
and directly file his numerous pre-trial documents directly in Department Eight to their courtroom
14
staff. From April through August 2016 Remington filed at least 100 individual documents including
15
5-6 per day on many occasions, all of which went perfectly, and without comment, criticism or any
16 mistakes of any kind, ever. To Remington that merely emphasizes the fact that there is a saboteur in
17 the Humboldt County Superior Court file room when he files documents through them. Additionally,
18 the latest example of this type of crime against Remington occurred after November 15, 2016
19 hearing wherein the Judge Reinholtsen court order was to send Remington a copy of the minutes so
20 he would know what the hell was going on in two different cases, with several different judges,
21 however, those minutes were never sent as ordered so Remington still does not fully understand who
the judges are in these cases or why.
22
932. As explained elsewhere, someone, over several years, went to huge trouble to sabotage
23
Remingtons documents, scatter-them widely around the courthouse, cancel hearings, remove
24
Remingtons name from the courts service list, withhold documents from judges and a wide and
25
diverse variety of other crimes.
26 933.Therefore, just as with Liz Smith above, professional investigators either within the county
27 or state court system or the District Attorneys Office will need to investigate these crimes, or more
28 probably just ignore them, and wait for Remington to go away. Remington still believes that most
probably Gans and Brisso, McBride or another Mitchell employee has a close relative or similar
confidant, lover or other confidential relationship with someone associated with the courts file room.
A relative or very close friend of one of the Mathsons, or their siblings, is also an option, and
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
39
1
deciding between the two above options is not realistically possible for Remington at this time and
2
again will depend upon discovery and whether Remington or his allies can locate another litigatory
3
adversary of Gans and Brisso and see if dirty tricks have been played upon them, TOO, or not. In any
4
case, without a third-party involved, it will be difficult to eliminate either above alternative.
5
Logically, it makes more sense for Gans RICO enterprise to do the corrupt activities which have
6 been done because they are intimately knowledgeable about the exact deadlines and the degree of
7 prejudice from sabotaging Remingtons documents at various times. As observed and written
8 elsewhere, Remington has noticed the very direct correlation between the number of animals and
9 destructive acts upon his property with the importance of various filing deadlines or court dates.
10 Gans knows precisely what Remingtons deadlines are, their importance, difficulty and hence the
11 amount of full concentration necessary in order to properly meet them. Therefore, theres no doubt in
Remingtons mind that the enterprise correlates many factors and at least two different saboteurs to
12
simultaneously attack Remington from within the courthouse and also from outside of his
13
fences, invariably one to two days before crucial deadlines. On the other hand, the Mathsons are
14
entirely crazed, desperate, have criminal mentalities and if they have a child or related zealot
15
anywhere near the courthouse file room, there is no doubt that they would induce that person with
16 money, sex, lavish praise or something of value to them, to try to technically destroy Remington in
17 his case, specifically by a failure to properly and timely file is documents. Therefore, the jury is
18 out on this issue and until the file room supervisor, court executives, Judge Reinholtsen or hopefully
19 the federal court takes a deadly serious and highly personal interest in this situation, it is obvious that
20 said file room saboteur will never be discovered, apprehended or brought to justice.
21 934. Judge Reinholtsen is still the sitting state judge in DR 080678, and therefore he cant
really be fully or properly dealt with herein. More details of his situation, Remingtons two attempts
22
to disqualify him after numerous prejudicial rulings and occurrences at the August 2016 trial, proved
23
he was hopelessly biased against Remington. Other probable inferences that Remington has drawn
24
about said court in 2016-17 is covered in RICO Statement 3L, as delicately as possible. On
25
February 17, 2017 we had a hearing on the status and next steps to be taken in DR 080678, and Judge
26 Reinholtsen conducted that status conference in an odd manner, when he solicited simultaneous
27 memorandums on the subject back in August 2016, And never allowed Remington to draft or file any
28 direct opposition to Gans post-trial brief. That situation today is very peculiar because the law is very
clear on what steps need to be taken next, as described in these documents elsewhere. Simply put it is
now up to defendants to prove to a jury that no continuing nuisances or trespass damages exist on
Remingtons land in any of his three-year time periods sued for. However, it appears at this time, that
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
40
1
even after Remingtons comprehensive 30-minute oral presentation summarizing all of the relevant
2
legal election and issues of fact to be determined only by a jury and not by the court or by Gans,
3
which are absolutely definitively mandated under Mangini II, etc., it inferentially appears to
4
Remington today that the court intends to prematurely dismiss DR 080678 to force this case next to
5
go to an appeal so that what it is one that can be returned to a different judge or after Judge
6 Reinholtsens imminent retirement, or both. All of that remains to be seen, and hopefully said judge
7 will take his usual 2-6 months to decide what to do next in that case and therefore allow this case to
8 move forward to a more expedited, efficient and reasonable conclusion in the federal system, for the
9 reasons explained throughout these documents.
10 935. Simply put, Remington has inferred for several months that Judge Reinholtsen is
11 somehow influenced by this RICO enterprise presumably through his good friend and longtime
former law partner and associate, Brisso. Said judge is a kind, empathetic man, a super-hard worker,
12
probably seven days per week, 9-12 hours per day, and although ill-suited to this particular case
13
intellectually, temperamentally and scientifically, he is our judge here. Apparently he wants to remain
14
that, and why he is so motivated to continue on here in such a time-consuming and onerously
15
detailed case in an area of the law he is unfamiliar with, is not immediately obvious, and how he
16 adapts to being named as a possible future RICO enterprise associate or defendant after considerable
17 additional discovery, remains to be seen. Presumably he will not appreciate these inferences,
18 however as fully set forth in the RICO Statement, during 2016, Judge Reinholtsen made too many
19 odd and prejudicial decisions against Remington to be entirely random or neutral, in Remingtons
20 opinion. Remington also expressed his candid opinions in the two disqualification motions, so the
21 cats out of the bag so to speak. Early in the May 2016 pre-trial hearings judge Reinholtsen said in
so many words that he was in effect not sensitive to what Remington was thinking about him, and
22
did not care if Remington did not like his decisions or thought he would have to appeal erroneous
23
rulings, and he said that in so many words. That said directly that he did not care what Remington
24
felt or eventually did with regards to opposing his orders or appealing his decisions. At the time,
25
obviously, Remington ignored all that and did his best to capitulate, convince him about what was
26 right and generally to get along with him because he had been an excellent judge in Remingtons
27 opinion for about seven years in these cases. Specifically, between an erroneous special motion
28 decision in 2009 were Gans deceived, confused and just conned-him, to be blunt about it, and his
erroneous collateral estoppel decision in June 2016, Judge Reinholtsen was an excellent and
exemplary judge who was on track to justly resolve these cases. However, in Remingtons opinion,
he went bad and fell under Gans and the Enterprises intellectual (at a minimum) influence in June
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
41
1
2016 and continued to bungle and make a variety of erroneous, and Remingtons opinion, legal
2
decisions and orders thereafter. As alluded to above, one more of such errors is now expected, but if
3
so it will be very easily appealable because it goes blatantly against many controlling Supreme Court
4
opinions in the contaminated nuisance/trespass area of the law.
5
936. Possibly said Judge was not influenced, intimidated, threatened with exposure and further
6 complaints (regarding his own recent felonious activities), or offered a wonderful lifetime of
7 common part-time retirement working indefinitely again as a partner at the Mitchell firm. However,
8 we dont really know that and Remington cannot just take his declaration at face value against the
9 background of approximately 50 consecutive totally biased, crucially important decisions adverse to
10 Remingtons interests in his 2016 pretrial and trial rulings, some of which are listed in the RICO
11 statement. Obviously, Remington will take an interest in all this now for years, especially after he
retires, to see if Judge Reinholtsen immediately winds-up at the Mitchell firm, as expected.
12
937. Therefore, Judge Reinholtsen is delicate, unfortunate and how we will gather the
13
necessary required discovery regarding his possible RICO associations, if any, remains difficult and
14
in doubt. Inferentially, if he is totally innocent and all of Remingtons inferences of possible
15
improper allegations or corruption are unfounded, then he will calmly respond to all questions and
16 indicate with his demeanor and answers that Remington is wrong. That is certainly possible, and just
17 as said Judge admitted that he might very well be wrong in this collateral estoppel decisions,
18 Remington willingly admits that it is theoretically possible that it judge could make 20-30
19 unbalanced or possibly prejudicial decisions against one litigant without being corruptly influenced,
20 and just did it because he believes that one side is guilty and the other is not. At a minimum, Judge
21 Reinholtsen has obviously concluded that Gans and Mathson are the good guys here that have been
totally abused herein for the last 10 years by a vindictive and falsely accusing Remington.
22
938. Possibly Judge Reinholtsen will be influenced or impressed by this RICO lawsuit, which if
23
he ever read this carefully might very well alter his overall impression of who is the good, and the
24
bad in these cases. However, said judge no longer reads Remingtons documents carefully, if he
25
ever did and therefore will never know what is alleged herein. Probably now he will merely be
26 angered, but as speculated above, Remington infers and feels that Judge Reinholtsen has had
27 enough of this case and has made-up his mind to capitulate to the RICO enterprise and send this case
28 to the appellate court where wiser minds can resolve many of these difficult issues. Probably that is
good, because again, without being unfair or nasty about it, Judge Reinholtsen now seems to
Remington to be intellectually incapable of grasping or properly resolving or applying the rather
simple law of these cases, at this point in this career, if one takes the time to carefully read it, which
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
42
1
He has not and Remington believes is never going to do. As explained above, he relies on his former
2
law partners and officers of the court to read and interpret the law for him and He has refused to
3
accept Remingtons constant clamor and constantly proven allegations that said Mitchell firm
4
attorneys are intentionally, successfully unethically and actually fraudulently deceiving Judge
5
Reinholtsen on the applicable Supreme Court law, and also on all the case facts as alleged in all of
6 these documents.
7 939. Mischa Schwartz of Winzler and Kelly, is Gans asbestos expert who has been
8 improperly used, untimely designated in any of the cases so far, did all of his work, if any, long after
9 discovery had closed in every case where he has written declarations; and, he has not even visited
10 Remingtons property where all of the asbestos has been recovered, nor has he timely investigated
11 the subject properties, according to Gans evasive and deceptive comments to the court during May
2016, about the dates of Schwartzs work.
12
940. His declarations to date are mostly wrong factually, unscientifically and non-objectively
13
slanted as though written by Gans, and mostly inaccurate, but not yet fraudulent or overtly
14
corrupted, but give him time. He has just started working for Gans. What Schwartz does next and
15
what he testifies to at the next state contamination trial or in federal court will be of great interest. So
16 far he has followed Ferrimans fraudulent and discredited narrative about their being only one piece
17 of pipe on both sites that may not even be asbestos, and he has entirely ignored clear, important and
18 blatantly dangerous chrysotile sampling results.
19 942. Presumably in future cases including this one, he will want to walk the sites, especially
20 Remingtons site where most of the asbestos and chrysotile have been recovered and is still located
21 today, conspicuously sticking-out of the ground in many places. Even after Mathson has removed
most of the visible asbestos or buried it under various types of organic debris, there are still a lot
22
more than just one piece of asbestos pipe visible and they are unmistakably asbestos, to any asbestos
23
specialist.
24
943. Michael Pulley of Points West surveying. Pulley is merely Gans surveyor who drove
25
some stakes in the ground along the joint property line between Mathson and Remingtons
26 properties. Gans has attempted to use his impressive voice and physical presence in front of a jury in
27 other corrupt and deceptive ways, such as to make Pulley their default volume of the fill expert,
28 however Remington caught on to that fraudulent attempt and at the August 2016 trial Pulley
acknowledged that he knew nothing about the extent or volume of the fill and that Gans had dictated
what the false parameters of the fill were and he had nothing to do with scientifically determining
where the fill was but merely drafted-in what Gans told him to do. At the August 2016 trial he was
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
43
1
just attempting to be honest and did not deny the obvious under cross-examination, that his crude
2
sketch of the purported toe of the fill was not an informed scientific geological opinion, was not
3
his own original work, but was merely a diagram depicting what Gans and Mathson disingenuously
4
and inaccurately told him to put on his chart. Gans would have misled us with the inference that
5
Pulley had determined how far the fill went on to Remingtons land or did not go, however that
6 crucial quasi-volume estimate parameter had nothing to do with Pulleys careful research. That
7 erroneous line was a further MAJOR, crucial, material misrepresentation by Gans intended to
8 deceive Remington, his experts and all courts involved in these cases. Failed as to Remington but
9 likely succeeded in deceiving the court and jury There is no other issue in these cases any more
10 important than what the encroaching volume on Remingtons land is as calculated by Remingtons
11 solid geometry-based additive, volumetric prismatic-solid methods. Simply put, without the accurate
and competent underlying field dimensions of the correct length, width and depth of the
12
contaminated fill, said toe of the fill line fraudulently ordered by Gans be put onto Pulleys big trial
13
chart, does nothing less than understate the fill AREA by at least 400%, by itself alone. When
14
combined and magnified by Gwinns depth errors of another 3-600%, Pulleys chart merely
15
graphically represented all of Gans false fraudulent statements of all three parameters of the fill in
16 one place. That false information was originally propounded under Gwinns uninformed signature,
17 wherein he misstated the first two variables of the three variable volume calculation (L x W x D), by
18 the above-referenced 400%, BUT after Gwinns fraudulent depths were added to the massive
19 erroneous mess for another 2-400% error in each additive reference prism, defendants knowingly
20 erroneous and fraudulent result was an understatement of a total multiplicative volume error of
21 between 800-1600%, overall! At any level of elementary school, high school or above Gans and his
RICO defendants would get an F minus for that work, plus an affair system, a suspension and/or jail
22
term.
23
944. The damaging significance of those errors in US dollars, if Gans numbers were to be
24
believed or applied here, would be an understatement of the cost to remove Mathsons encroaching
25
wastes by a factor of 8-16 times! In other words, if believed, a jury might award Remington $20,000,
26 when the correct amount was 8-12 times that amount, say TEN (10) times, or over $200,000!! that is
27 why both sides of this dispute regard the volume calculation is so important.
28 945. Therefore, Pulleys chart involves arguably the most crucial damages issue in the
cases, and so far he has been honest and accurate in his testimony. Maybe that wont change. SEE
3O, for additional details regarding Pulley and Remingtons RICO statement.
10 followed his express specific directions, however there are a variety of obvious exceptions,
11 especially where intermediaries such as Brisso, Plotz or McBride issued the specific orders in
question directly to the RICO racketeering members and soldiers, but which orders were originated
12
by Gans and his top RICO brain trust. See RICO Statement for more on all, plus See GANS RICO
13
ENTERPRISE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART-2017.
14
15
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16 976. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over Remingtons claims under 28 USC
17 1331 and under 18 USC 1964 (c). Remingtons first claim for relief arises under 18 USC 1961 et
18 seq., as hereinafter more fully appears. There is also minor diversity of citizenship between the
19 parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Remingtons
20 RICO, state, county contamination law claims all arise out of the same case or controversy as its
21 federal law claims, as all claims in this action ultimately arise out of a common nucleus of operative
facts originating around 1998, but thereafter have morphed into successive continuing action
22
claims. Thus, this court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Remington state law claims under 28
23
USC 1367.
24
977. Venue is proper in this district under 28 USC 1391 (a)-(c), as All of the property that
25
is the subject of these actions is located in Humboldt County and the Federal Northern District; a
26 substantial number of the events and related issues giving rise to this action occurred in this district;
27 and, because all principal defendants and/or subordinate or likely defendants are residents of
28 Humboldt County, California; and also under 18 USC 1965.
10 this district because he is a long-time resident of the Northern District of California, and he is
11 expected to remain so. As above, 18 USC 1962 and 28 USC 1367 apply to Nelson.
A. As rather thoroughly explained above and at 2I, beginning in 2012, after John Aveggios
12
untimely death, Nelson has successfully attempted to make Remingtons life a living nightmare by
13
first allowing his replacement Mike Foget to get fully and totally involved here as Remingtons
14
environmental expert, and then suddenly breaching our contract and removing him for no legal or
15
reasonable reason. Foget Was very excited by the work and the new challenges of learning the
16 intricacies of litigation support and Nelson further encouraged Remington to get excited by Fogets
17 new ideas and enthusiasm, over the period of about two years. Foget alone wasted much more than
18 $15,000 of Remingtons time which Remington had spent, without limitation: In the consolidation,
19 condensing and reviewing of Aveggios work for relevance, significance, continuity and future
20 continuations; Determining where Foget was seriously deficient as to testifying at depositions and
21 trials in a proficient and exemplary manner, and identifying where he needed major remedial
training; Determining exactly which specific parts and passages of all Aveggios numerous written
22
documents and depositions needed to be studied, and almost memorized by Foget for trial and his
23
deposition, WHY, and what we could do to improve upon that testimony; determining what kinds of
24
books, YouTube videos, and personal practice sessions Foget NEEDED in order to get up-to-speed
25
on trial and deposition tactics for environmental expert witnesses, and how to appropriately testify in
26 front of a local jury; and in the planning and scheduling of more visits, future testing whenever that
27 might be allowed and what OTHER toxins we would still like to test for; planning what to do about
28 the contaminated water with regards to capturing and treatment methods, where that would be done
who would design the systems and at what costs; and, probably more time-consuming than anything
else were Remingtons complex and lengthy at least 3-4 different, vehemently contested, Foget-
related trial motions, to substitute him into the cases and then to request additional testing of his own,
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
55
1
which requests as to additional testing were essentially denied by Judge Reinholtsen, and therefore
2
had to be reiterated and reinitiated several different times, increasing the complexity and convolution
3
of Fogets brief and highly wasteful foray into these cases, exponentially, etc. Gans battled against
4
Fogets entry into the case like it was the Battle of Gettysburg, knowing that if he could block
5
Remington from having any environmental expert at all, the case would instantly be over. In other
6 words, Nelsons tortious breach and abrogation of our litigation support contract with SHN caused
7 extreme damages, far beyond what Nelson pretends to understand at this point, but which Gans
8 understands all too well, and eventually so will a federal jury.
9 989. As outlined above, from 2012-2014, Nelson was conspiratorially and corruptly involved
10 with Gans and improperly influenced by his enterprise, as explained. Gans had been fully defeated
11 by Aveggio and understood that if he could not get rid of Foget, just as Aveggio was lost, then
Remington would have to give up his entire defense. Intimidating, extorting, bribing or otherwise
12
improperly influencing Nelson was a stroke of genius by Gans and was extremely effective. It greatly
13
damaged Remington and the Burl Tree by apparently eliminating Remingtons last possible credible
14
environmental expert in this area which although not yet fully successful as explained above,
15
nevertheless Gans collusion with Nelson had very predictably adverse effects and impacts on the
16 prosecution of Remingtons lawsuit, and caused Remington grave anxiety during the substitutions of
17 Foget and Dr. McEdwards, and all those surrounding problems, which caused the numerous types of
18 damages explained above, and throughout these documents, many of which emotional, consequential
19 and special damages are continuing and not yet fully recovered from, as will be determined and
20 summed up at a trial.
21 990. Even today, Gans is still attempting to bar any and all of Aveggios brilliant work from
the next trial in any form, and he has now successfully prevented Aveggios good friend Foget from
22
communicating with Remington and from interpreting and authenticating Aveggios work plans or
23
even identifying his handwriting. Nelson has strangely backed-up Gans and thwarted both
24
Remington and Fogets emotional and related just and reasonable desires to vindicate Aveggio and
25
all of his work and make sure that he did not die in vain, essentially. Some of the last and best work
26 that Aveggio did in his lifetime was at the Remington project in 2011. Nelson now fully controls
27 Foget like a Negro slave, and extensive discovery is now going to probe that relationship and to what
28 extent Gans was responsible for it, because in either case, it was and still is very damaging to the
Burl Tree, as explained. Now, going forward, under federal law, if either Gans or Nelson denies
under oath in their special interrogatories that they did not have the above alleged interactions, they
will open-themselves-up to severe federal penalties, as fully described in the RICO Statement. We
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
56
1
expect to be able to prove a lot of the truth here, early-on, with some of the lower echelon witnesses
2
involved here, who are not yet sufficiently implicated here that they would be afraid of prison if they
3
decided to tell the truth from the beginning. There are about a dozen such witnesses at this time,
4
some of whom have been described in these RICO documents, and others are likely to unexpectedly
5
come forward.
6 991. Finally, as alluded to above, serious damages have been incurred here in this SHN fraud
7 and expert witness disaster, but so far are probably only in the mid-five figures range, however were
8 Remington and the Burl Tree to lose any of these contamination cases and then be subjected to and
9 lose malicious prosecution and punitive damages of some sort, plus legal fees, Remingtons losses
10 and provable damages against SHN in particular, could easily rise into the 6-7 figure range,
11 according to proofs to a San Francisco jury. Therefore, as stated above, exercise of jurisdiction over
Nelson is reasonable and proper in this district.
12
992. Exercise of jurisdiction over the vandalistic, psychopathic felon John Mathson is
13
reasonable and proper because he is a California resident who is believed to have never been
14
substantially out of the state or past Oregon. As above, 18 USC 1962 and 28 USC 1367 apply to
15
his jurisdictional culpability.
16 993. John Mathsons serious continuous criminal activity and collusion with the entire
17 racketeering organization, especially the experts and his fellow perjuring drinking buddies and
18 alleged users has been emphasized here, throughout these documents.
19 994. In summary, Mathson has for many years, continuing into 2017, engaged in more than
20 150 intentional, deliberate, wrongful, illegal, tortious, extortive, intimidating, slanderous, exactive,
21 etc and/or blatantly RICO predicate acts, which he and his wife both know would justifiably scare,
anger and hurt Remington, his wife and grandkids, emotionally, physically and also irreparably
22
damage the Remingtons image and reputation in this community.
23
995. Those same acts which damage Remingtons family as described also injure the Burl
24
Trees land, gardens, fences, large residential offices and structural-complex, and his entire estate
25
accordingly.
26 996. Eventually Mathsons and defendants contaminated soils, water, asbestos, etc. will be
27 removed at their expense, but stigma and damages to the estate itself and its eventual marketability
28 may have been in alterable he and irreparably damaged, probably permanently. Mathsons soils and
poisonous waters can be removed, cleaned-up and remediated, whereas the damages to Remington
and the Burl Tree business in the community, due to defendants corruption, bad faith, slanderous and
libelous public statements and lies that all Remingtons burls are contaminated, along with the entire
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
57
1
estate, broadcasted bad feelings, and similar nasty untrue accusations in the community etc, can
2
probably never be fully undone, at least in Remingtons lifetime. Since 1998, defendants, and all of
3
them, have accused Remington of poisoning, damaging and otherwise threatening the health of the
4
community with his contaminated burls, when hypocritically, and in reality, it is the Mathsons that
5
are poisoning all nearby residents with the asbestos, toxic vapors and contaminated waters discussed
6 at length, herein.
7 997. Exercise of jurisdiction over defendant Linda Lawrence is applicable, reasonable and
8 proper for the same reasons as for those above. She is believed to be a long-time and continuous
9 resident of California, and therefore she, or any possible replacement, is also liable and sue-able
10 under 18 USC 1962 and 28 USC 1367.
11 998. More details about what we know about Linda Lawrence are discussed at 2B around
pages 94-108. Although we need vastly more discovery from her, at this point it is obvious that she
12
is intimately involved with plotting and executing Gans strategy and according to Gans (see RICO
13
Statement) her only serious reservations about these lawsuits are that it is costing her too much, and
14
taking the enterprise too long to defeat Remington, to suit her. Gans has probably conned-her and
15
duped her about many facets of these cases, however as explained, she is a highly sophisticated
16 executive and clearly knows about almost all of Gans corrupt, nefarious RICO acts in Eureka,
17 and otherwise she obviously should know and should have known about everything.
18 999. Gans has only one interest in these cases and that is to keep getting highly paid himself
19 for as long as possible, while likely presumably attempting to get the best possible result for the
20 Mathsons.
21 Lawrence is, and has been for many years, engaged in intentional, wrongful, illegal, tortious
and RICO federal predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice,
22
accessory to multiple related felonies, and the other acts alleged throughout these documents, which
23
acts continue through January 2017 as discussed in much more detail at RICO Statement, 2B.
24
25
FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS
26 A. Background
27 1000. One sentence summary of RICO case. This RICO portion of Remingtons 2017
28 federal complaint details how since about 2012, Gans, defendants and their cadre of ordinary,
innocent-looking corrupt defense lawyers, environmental experts and technicians have perverted
this states legal system to defraud, extort, intimidate, bankrupt and thereafter destroy Remington, his
family and the Burl Tree (as explained in detail herein), in order to steal his land, avoid all back-
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
58
1
rent, retaining wall and cleanup costs, as well as force the Remingtons to drop their just
2
contamination cases to avoid total, devastating financial ruin or possibly physical violence.
3
Proofs of many of the quotations and/or other evidence included herein were capturedAnd
4
contemporaneously documented in many ways including, without limitation: On hundreds of hours
5
of surveillance camera videos; micro audio during about 100 days of 2016 pretrial proceedings and
6 related corridor interactions; Recorded in the Burl Trees extensive chronological, daily business
7 records; derived directly from more than 1000 deposition pages from the parties and experts from
8 both sides over seven (7) years; reconstructed from many thousands of words of expert declarations,
9 again from both sides; quoted from word-processed 2016 hearing transcripts; and, also copied
10 directly from about 20,000 pages of defendants own motion documents, emails, letters,
11 transcriptions from verbal statements from numerous hearings, phone calls, personal meetings or
defendants witnesses trial testimony; and from numerous other material trial evidence, many
12
thousands of photos, more than 100 sophisticated and scientifically accurate expert-testimony trial
13
charts, other documents, other informed percipient witness, electronic sources plus extensive
14
information on the above from the internet.
15
1001. Short history. Almost 10 years of litigating this dispute has produced the cited
16 evidence and predicate acts, condensed into these presently-filed 1000 or so pages, however
17 considerable additional discovery has now begun in order to further define all of the relationships
18 between the defendants and associates named herein. Until August 2016 these cases were on track
19 for a just resolution by a jury, but now Gans blatantly corrupt Mafia-like intimidations, bribery,
20 intimidation, inferred improper influence of a Superior Court judge, and absolutely known and
21 provable suborning of perjury among five coordinated witnesses, pursuant to his carefully crafted
scripts, well-coached and memorized false narratives of all important 2016 SOL case issues, has
22
dropped defendants Gans and Plotz led defense to an all time dark, dirty and criminal LOW level.
23
1002. That Gans approach, new path and now unavoidable method of resolution is not to
24
Remingtons choosing or liking, as he prefers the most beautiful, honest and highest forms of art,
25
music, literature, and the ideals of legal justice, decency and fair play, which are unfortunately
26 entirely unknown to defendants RICO enterprise and their nefarious objectives which now go far-
27 beyond just defeating Remingtons just contamination cases. However, now that Remington has
28 been mercilessly, ruthlessly and preemptively attacked, like at Pearl Harbor, only with invisible
nerve gas as defendants primary weapon of choice, now we must put-on our expensive gas masks
and total breathing and 100% skin-protective apparatus, suitable for a spacewalk, and then wallow
10 and provably acted-upon purposes and objectives of Gans RICO racketeering enterprise, pursuant
11 to Remingtons RICO statement 5 (d), are:
1) Defendants illegal hazardous waste dump can and MUST remain on Remingtons land;
12
2) Defendants will not incur any costs for its removal;
13
3) Defendants will therefore get all of, i.e STEAL Remingtons encroached-upon land free,
14
without ever paying any present or back RENT, and without ever being forced to buy said
15
land which they use, and have heavily used, as if they had owned it for the last 30 years;
16 4) As a result of defendants massive encroachment and major land theft of crucial land needed
17 to stabilize Mathsons entire property, they will avoid all criminal culpability for such theft and
18 not have to go to jail for their present RICO criminal coverups;
19 5) All of the RICO enterprise leaders and soldiers will continue to make high salaries and have
20 all of their lavish expenses met at Remingtons expense eventually and indefinitely;
21 6) Above all, the enterprise is dedicated to eventually entirely crushing and ruining
Remingtons family personally, and driving them forever from this area simply out of spite,
22
because he stood up to them for what is right;
23
7) After Remington gives-up and is driven away, then defendants intend to sue him for
24
malicious prosecution and the recovery of all of their costs, expenses and attorneys fees in
25
these cases since 2008, for the insult of standing-up to the bully, for what is right.
26 1008. Gans basic method of operation. Under the pretense of legality, Gans defense has
27 become entirely corruptly based in focus, as described in extensive detail in the 570+-page RICO
28 statement. As fully explained there, Gans enterprise does not operate 100% with criminal acts, But
possibly only 20% severe illegality. They mislead, pretend to be mostly following the law, which
mostly they are even if deceptively, deceitfully and unethically; meanwhile they continuously distract
and deceive Remington and the courts from noticing and proving that a large percentage of their
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
61
1
overall activity is corrupt and in specific violation of the federal predicate acts cited herein. That
2
entirely pervasive defensive fraud and corruption practiced-in and illicitly condoned-by the state
3
court caused Remington to remove these cases the federal court in order to get honest, ethical,
4
focused and more intelligent adjudication. See also GANS RICO enterprise organizational chart-
5
2017.
6 Gans, Skillings, Mathson, Plotz, Brisso, and Kluck, et al, have all systematically extorted
7 Remington especially in 2016, by numerous specific threats and destructive acts, intended to
8 continue their reign of terror forever, and reach their objectives just re-summarized at number
9 1007, above. As stated there, Gans enterprise will absolutely not rest until: Remington gives up his
10 cases; settles for nothing beyond avoiding the pain and expense of Gans future threats of malicious
11 prosecution and punitive damages; permanently and with his blessings gives-up all of his very
valuable, owned land north of Remington Creek to defendants, purchase and rent free; forgives 19
12
years of back rent worth $228,000 and increasing; stops demanding that defendants clean-up their
13
dumped hazardous materials on Remingtons land, plus their own; and eventually moves from the
14
street, so defendants lawless, hedonistic, lower-class gangs can control the community, without
15
upward mobility pressures.
16 1009. Injuries and harm. Remington and his business the Burl Tree which owns virtually all
17 property at 832 Westgate Dr., have suffered substantial damages as a result of defendants RICO
18 conspiracy, which damages continue daily.I
19 A. Specifically, see the categories of relief requested at the end of this complaint, and at the
20 end of the RICO causes of action and in the RICO statement at 15, 16 and 17, about pages 501-513.
21 1010. Overview of federal civil RICO law. What are the necessary salient elements common to
all RICO violations, do they exist here and has Remington properly alleged them?
22
1011. Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as Title
23
IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, a comprehensive legislative package aimed at
24
combating the influence of organized crime on interstate commerce. The broad scope of the RICO
25
statute however, has allowed it to be applied far-beyond conventional organized crime to reach
26 nearly any circumstance that involves long-term criminal or fraudulent conduct, including the types
27 of circumstances alleged herein.
28 1012. Section 1962 of RICO generally outlaws four types of conduct involving a pattern of
racketeering activity, only two of which are presently alleged herein until the extensive discovery
now underway has been completed. The two now alleged here, are under 1962 (c) and (d). Section
1962 (c) prohibits a person from knowingly operating or managing the affairs of a separate enterprise
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
62
1
through a pattern of racketeering activity. Section 1962 (d) prohibits a person from conspiring to
2
participate in an endeavor or scheme that, if completed, would constitute a violation of sections 1962
3
(a), (b) or (c). Gans, and his Mitchell firms operative criminal leadership have and continue to
4
operate an extortive racketeering enterprise collusively conspiring to achieve total victory over
5
Remington in these environmental lawsuits, in violation of 1962 (c), while destroying him
6 personally, financially and emotionally in the process.
7 1013. This civil RICO claim is brought primarily under section 1962 (c) which requires that
8 Remington prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1) the defendant is a culpable person
9 who willfully or knowingly; 2) operated or manage the affairs of an enterprise or association-in-
10 fact enterprise; 3) to commit a pattern of: 4) racketeering activity.
11 1014. Additionally, under section 1964 (c), a civil plaintiff may recover triple damages for injury
to his business or property by reason of of violations of sections 1962 (a), (b), (c) or (d). The
12
plaintiff must bring its RICO claim within four (4) years from when it discovers, or with reasonable
13
diligence should have discovered, his injury. These elements and issues are discussed in more detail
14
below and in much more detail in the RICO statement. Remington herein alleges that said RICO
15
defendants violated sections (c) and (d) of 1962 with the substantial portion of their defensive
16 litigatory activity which was clearly and provably in violation of the state and federal laws cited
17 herein.
18 1015. The Culpable Person Requirement. A plaintiff cannot prove a RICO violation merely
19 by lumping all of the defendants together as a group and claiming that said group collectively
20 violated RICO. Instead the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that each
21 individual offender qualifies as a culpable person who willfully or with actual knowledge violated
or conspired to violate the RICO statutes as fully and specifically designated. Section 1961 (3)
22
defines a culpable person as an entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in
23
property, which definition would apply to all of the currently named 12 RICO defendants.
24
1016. Russell Gans is the undisputed leader, but he is far from being alone in his willful and
25
knowing criminal activity, as he has many other thoughtful top management Mitchell firm attorneys
26 and executives assisting him plus the leaders of or responsible employees of many additional
27 prominent local Eureka businesses, which have been variously named under defendants, other
28 wrongdoers and various near defendants or anticipated future defendants, when they begin their
deceitful defense which now must be consistent with their state case precedents, numerous errors and
very extensive perjury and Gans objectives, all of which sworn testimony and false facts are too late
to change now.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
63
1
1017. Each of the currently named 12 individual defendants, which includes one legal
2
partnership association, and one alleged Corporation (RAO) is an entity capable of holding a legal
3
or beneficial interest in property as defined in 18 USC 1961 (3), and therefore can be sued under
4
the RICO statutes cited.
5
1018. Each named defendant is an individual alleged RICO culpable person, however Gans
6 overall 40+-man illicit sham legal machine, which is in reality a RICO racketeering organization,
7 is not the culpable person or a real entity capable of owning land, or doing anything much as a large
8 group. The enterprise never acts in concert like an invading army, but merely chips-away at justice,
9 one or two acts, motions, opposition or perjuries at a time. Each culpable person and defendant,
10 operated or manage the affairs of this association-in-fact enterprise as they worked to achieve the
11 objectives of the enterprise by committing a pattern of racketeering activity, by committing
multiple 1961 unlawful federal and state predicate acts. A RICO racketeering enterprise is similar
12
to an individual in that a criminal can perform 500 consecutive honest acts in society and then
13
commit one arson, burglary, kidnapping or violent extortive act. At that time, that individual or
14
organization becomes a criminal and all of the good other acts are probably irrelevant to that
15
designation. Further, and analogously, obviously if an individual or organization commits 50 or more
16 extortive racketeering and additional criminal acts (over 4 years), performing 2000 noncriminal
17 administrative acts will not erase any of the criminal acts, or be a defense against being a RICO
18 criminal racketeering enterprise. Such is our situation here.
19 1019. For example, the Godfathers Mafia organization is an enterprise, but not a culpable
20 person. Individual criminal RICO enterprise family members must be analyzed in detail, one by
21 one, crime by crime, which has been done here now for the past six (6) solid months, and continues.
That process is quite complicated, time-consuming and can continue during March-April 2017 based
22
on the dozens of instances of federal mail and wire fraud alone, which are already in the files, but
23
soon are expected to multiply by at least 3-5, when written discovery commences to a large number
24
of enterprise members, associates and witnesses. More than 50 serious federal predicate acts already
25
exist in this case, however, during 2017, for the obvious reasons thoroughly discussed herein, MANY
26 more federal predicate acts of the worst magnitude are expected immediately, which presumably will
27 essentially dominate the FAC in this case around early 2018.
28 1020. Gans alleged RICO enterprise defined, as paraphrased from the RICO statement.
Gans extortion racketeering enterprise is a group of individuals associated in fact in the
manner prescribed by 18 USCA 1961 (4), as explained directly below.
21 defendants have committed here in the last four years, and as is now apparent, it took him almost
550-pages to explain them. However, if forced to provide an attempted one sentence summary of
22
the general continuity of the primary defendants harmful acts it would be, something like: Gans
23
attempted extortion, exaction, improper influence, fraud and unlawful intimidation of Remington,
24
while Mathson, Skillings and the numerous other enterprise soldiers applied continuous, daily, major,
25
literally unbearable destructive pressures on the Burl Trees property and Remingtons time and
26 waiting energies, involved most fundamentally Gans actually stated, to Remington in so many
27 words, quid pro quo that: THEY are very angry with you and therefore obviously they will
28 relentlessly continue to harass, extort and destroy all of your development, until you unconditionally
surrender and give-up these lawsuits on our terms, with all of the rest directly implied, as
explained under the Enterprises objectives.
1029. Mail and Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1343.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
67
1
There have already been numerous acts of mail and wire fraud alleged herein already with
2
another 20-40 or more anticipated to be easily recovered from the tens of thousands of pages of case
3
documents, when time permits, or if necessary. Remington does not expect to spend another several
4
hundred hours doing so automatically yet, because it is very clear that federal production of
5
documents, after several years of motions to compel, will produce many more MAIL FRAUD8,
6 smoking guns which are more important than anything yet existing in the files today. A RICO
7 racketeering law firm is above-all careful in what they write and obviously they are not going to
8 voluntarily release any documents at all which inferentially might send someone to prison. Hence,
9 90% of this lawsuit over the next several years will probably involve attempting to locate
10 incriminating documents from ancillary participants, before the major named defendants are able to
11 collusively purge their phone, email and filing records, and essentially attempt to conspiratorially
destroy all written documents, which would be incriminating. Therefore, since incriminating emails,
12
letters and written plans will be obviously hard to come by, extensive depositions of all RICO
13
members, while forcing them to bring and produce all of their relevant documents that they have
14
received from and sent to the enterprise leadership, will of course be important. Forcing criminals to
15
talk and reveal or keep from destroying documents which may send them to prison is not
16 Remingtons primary strength or interest, hence he does anticipate employing an attorney that likes
17 kicking ass and explaining to witnesses why it will probably be more in their interests to tell the
18 truth than to lie. Also, obviously having the right tough federal judge overseeing all this will be
19 crucial. Defendants need to fear someone here, and that clearly has not been Remington, as should be
20 obvious in these hundreds of pages. On the bright side, however, from Remingtons perspective is
21 that Gans now has a literally impossible task of keeping all of his false facts and untruthful witness
statements consistent and exempt from now becoming additional imprisonable federal predicate acts,
22
so now it is just a matter of time and perseverance for Remington to complete the puzzle and
23
conversely to simultaneously to point-out and prove that even though Gans is frantically re-cutting
24
8. To prove a RICO claim based on mail or wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1343, a
25
RICO plaintiff must prove that each defendant intentionally engaged in a scheme to defraud and
26 used the interstate mails or wires to further that scheme. A scheme to defraud encompasses "acts of
artifice or deceit which are intended to deprive an owner of his property or money," (Vicom cited).
27 When pled as RICO predicate acts, the elements of mail or wire fraud have been identified as 1) a
28 plan or scheme to defraud; 2) intent to defraud; 3) reasonable foreseeability that the mail or wires
will be used; and 4) actual use of the mail or wires to further the scheme, Wisdom cite. The mailings
and wire communications need not be fraudulent in and of themselves; as innocuous or "innocent"
mailings and wirings are sufficient RICO predicates as long as they further a fraudulent scheme,
Tabas cited. This is because the crux of mail and wire fraud is a scheme to defraud, and the mails or
wires need only be used to carry out Gans (here) scheme.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
68
1
and repainting his hundreds of disparate puzzle pieces, they will never fit into the real picture here or
2
anything other than a great picture of a man standing behind the bars of a jail.
3
1030. Fraudulent Collusion and Conspiracy is alleged here under section 1962 (d) as well
4
as numerous state laws, under the environmental portions of this complaint.
5
A. Under 1962 (d), see also RICO Statement 14, page 655-656, RICO plaintiff Remington
6 intends to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that each culpable defendant knowingly agreed
7 to facilitate or participate in an endeavor or scheme that, if completed, would constitute a violation of
8 the RICO statute, see Salinas, 522 US 52, 65-66 (1997). In our case, many subordinate RICO
9 schemes have already been completed, and also many have been attempted, which are still in
10 progress.
11 1031. Each named RICO defendant, and each listed, named other prominent enterprise
member who eventually probably will be or may be named as financially responsible culpable future
12
defendants by the time of trial, need to have both agreed to participate in the alleged RICO
13
conspiracy with some knowledge of the essential nature of that scheme. It is not necessary that some
14
of the named defendants or minor possible defendants did not know all of the details of the scheme
15
or commit any of the criminal acts alleged, in furtherance of the scheme, Salinas, ID. Rather, it is
16 only necessary that a defendant must knowingly agreed to facilitate the activities of those who
17 operate or managed the criminal enterprise, the latter of which could be Gans, Brisso, Plotz,
18 McBride or potentially about a dozen others.
19 1032. Gans enterprise gravely injured Remingtons business the Burl Tree as alleged
20 herein and specifically in the RICO Statement 15-17, at pages 656-670. As further alleged, and
21 proven and all of these documents, as based on available discovered information to date, Gans
racketeering enterprise was the proximate cause of the Burl Trees injuries, and specifically as a
22
result of the numerous alleged violations of section 1962 (c). At RICO statement number 14, page
23
501, Remington also alleges that the overall RICO racketeering conspiratorial acts also contributed
24
to those Burl Tree damages, as apportioned in the following 12-13 pages9.
25
1033. Furthermore, for Remington to have the required standing under section 1962 (c), under
26 Holmes v. Securities, 503 US 258, 268-69 (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the Burl Trees
27 injuries must be by reason of the defendants commission of the alleged RICO predicate act (s).
28 Additionally, that by reason of language requires that Remington show but for causation and
9. Simply put here, the Burl Tree owns all of the land, gardens and development at 832 Westgate Dr.
involved in this lawsuit and also owns about 95% (by value) of all of the extensive inventory and
large amount of personal, business, architectural and building materials, etc property on this site.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
69
1
proximate cause which depends primarily on the directness and foreseeability of the injury, and its
2
causal relationship to the injurious conduct alleged, ID.
3
1034. Reliance. Although Remington has an unfortunate, difficult to break habit of relying on
4
proper, legal or official-looking documents, letters and motions from Gans, the Mitchell firm and the
5
Humboldt County Superior Court, he has gradually learned, and by 2016 probably knows that
6 nothing from either source can be fully or always reasonably relied upon. As has been alleged here,
7 and as fully documented in these 1000 or so pages, based-upon the presently reasonably discovered
8 facts, Remington has recently become totally skeptical and suspicious of any document from said
9 above sources, and particularly from Gans enterprise. Fortunately, however reasonable reliance by
10 plaintiff on defendants fraudulent unlawful and criminal RICO conduct is not required to sue for
11 damages under RICO, see Bridge v. Phoenix, 128 S. Ct 2131 (2008), and also Holmes, Anza, etc.
1035. There has unfortunately been substantial detrimental reliance by others on Gans
12
RICO enterprise deceptions, material falsifications and perjury which damaged Remington, and
13
his business, however, and they would include without limitation: Judge Reinholtsen, Judge Watson,
14
the visiting Judge (Bream) that improperly allowed Esko into the case; The County Health
15
Department, numerous (35-40) other Northcoast governmental agencies, ranging from State Fish and
16 Game to the County Planning and Zoning Commission; and, last but certainly not least, the August
17 2016 SOL trial jury and about a dozen associated court staff members. Said associated court clerks,
18 guards and related staff all helped to improperly influence each other and the jury with respect to the
19 perceived but false veracity of defendants entire case and all of their positions, as well as to
20 successfully disguise and conceal the corruption and rampant, smelly criminality of their RICO
21 enterprise, which conducted the entire SOL trial, plus more than 100-previous days of largely
corrupted pretrial hearings. Specific examples of Gans most recent examples of blocking Superior
22
Court orders from being sent to Remington as ordered, and his even more blatantly corrupt, flagrant
23
mischaracterizations of California Supreme Court contamination law, which occurred on the
24
stenographic record on February 17, 2017, was described and complained about elsewhere in these
25
documents.
26 1036. Substantial amounts of interstate commerce were negatively affected and entirely
27 eliminated by Gans Enterprises injuries to Remington and the Burl Tree.
28 A. As established elsewhere, the Burl Tree is Remington and vice versa. Remingtons forced
defense of Gans frivolous retaliatory and preemptive lawsuit, and Gans scores of motions, hundreds
of other issues which all required huge daily expenditures of strenuously debilitating time to
defense; having to deal with John Mathsons and his criminal gangs continuous daily vandalistic and
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
70
1
very destructive acts, requiring even more strenuous physical exertions; plus Remingtons partially
2
voluntary offensive lawsuits, effectively took all of Remingtons time for about 10-years and
3
counting, which was another major, extremely costly damage in addition to the numerous
4
complained of direct real and personal property destructions.
5
1037. Eventually, a jury will also be asked to determine whether any of Remingtons legal
6 time, money and energies was really voluntary when he was merely seeking the absolutely just
7 removal of defendants encroaching poisonous wastes which had to be removed to salvage the health
8 and most likely the very life of Remington and the community, plus (only) partially restore
9 Remingtons property value, which can now never fully recover due to real estate stigma. Stigma
10 will now require one last lawsuit after the property has been sold, if it must be sold below expertly
11 appraised value, as determined by 4-5 of the best local experts.
1038. The Burl Tree has lost an enormous amount of sales since the discovery of defendants
12
pollution in 2006. During 2006 and in the prior 20 years Burl Tree sales averaged approximately
13
$100,000 per year, and have been as much as $400,000 in a year. Today, and since about 2008, sales
14
have been roughly in the $4000 per year range. That is a drop of about $96,000 per year
15
attributable to these lawsuits, and Remingtons participation therein. Currently, Remingtons profit
16 margin is approximately 90% of gross sales, since he has zero logging, manufacturing, utilities,
17 personnel or overhead costs, but exact damages will be calculated during a trial and not 10 different
18 other times before that.
19 1039. As stated above and thoroughly established elsewhere, because the Burl Tree IS Bruce
20 Remington, and because Remingtons time has been 100-110% occupied full-time for at least 5-6 of
21 Remingtons recent man-years here, Remington attributes about $45,000 per year in lost sales to the
necessity to defend against Gans lawsuits alone over the past eight years. Although, arguably all
22
of Remingtons litigation time spent defending the Burl Trees property interests should be
23
recoverable, as well as loss Burl Tree profits, there are other assumptions which can now be made,
24
below.
25
1040. If only Remingtons time spent defending against Gans frivolous motions and lawsuit are
26 recoverable here, Remington would now argue, and rounding-down in defendants favor, that 8-10
27 years of diminished profits of almost $90,000 per year, would be calculated at about $720,000; then,
28 if that is divided by two to recover only defensive time but not offense case time, then only $360,000
in lost profits would be recoverable. Whether Remingtons paralegal or secretarial time is added onto
that number would be a matter for the trier of fact to determine at some later appropriate time, such
as during a federal trial.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
71
1
1041. According to those above calculations then, Gans enterprise directly reduced Burl Tree
2
retail profits by about $360,000 and wholesale profits by a total of more than $500,000, for a total
3
loss of sales PROFITS of $860,000, according to proofs. About $850,000 of that loss would have
4
been interstate commerce losses applicable here. Under the doctrine of RICOs treble damages, that
5
would be over a $2 million business loss alone. Not an enormous drop for the US or world economy,
6 yet catastrophic for Remington, the Burl Tree and his affected customers.
7 A. Clearly, Remington and the Burl Tree have sustained major injuries caused by Gans RICO
8 racketeering enterprise.
9 1042. Does plaintiff Remington meet RICOs standing requirements? [YES]
10 To establish standing for a civil RICO claim, Remington must satisfy four factors: 1) He
11 must be a person, which is apparent based upon the discussions in the RICO statement and
especially at 4, pages 305-307, describing the business victims, Remington, his family and the Burl
12
Tree; 2) who sustains injury, 3) to his business or property (or both in this case), 4) by reason
13
of defendants violation of 1962. Remington has conclusively argued herein that Gans
14
enterprise directly caused 100% of the complained of Burl Trees injuries from the direct causal
15
effects of their dozens of federal and state predicate acts, as described herein, with clearly no
16 material intervening factors.
17 1043. Further, as explained above, and in the RICO statement at page 656 and beyond, the
18 additional Burl Tree injuries sustained from the overt acts of the enterprise committed in
19 furtherance of their conspiracy, are a violation of 1962 (d) and are recoverable thereunder.
20 1044. Remington and the Burl Tree sustained a concrete measurable financial loss caused
21 by the enterprise. It is ascertainable, defined and includes Remingtons present inability to fully use
or transfer any of his property at all, because it is all impacted by Gans enterprise. Under the law,
22
Remington has a right to conduct business relations unhampered by the corrupt schemes
23
perpetrated by Gans organization, which are prohibited by the RICO predicate act statutes,
24
Mendoza v. Zirkly, 301 F 3d 1163, 1168 (9th C 2002).
25
Statute of Limitations.
26 1045. The US Supreme Court has established a four-year statute of limitations for RICO
27 actions such as this one. Here, four years is easily met and conforms with the worst and
28 independently verifiable predicate acts alleged in this case. Remington can and previously has pled
facts showing that the defendants fraudulently, cleverly, very well-concealed vital information
needed to bring this RICO claim any earlier, and Remington could not have discovered those facts
sooner, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence plus constant scrutiny.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
72
1
1046. That principle applies to various aspects of Remingtons asbestos claims and to its
2
burial, concealment, its dismissal as insignificant by Schwartz and Ferriman, and the fraudulent
3
out-of-time Blue Rock tests, to cite only two of the earlier frauds from 2008-2011, which presently
4
are not needed here to support a RICO cause of action. See the comprehensive RICO statement
5
which shows most presently recognized predicate acts organized by individual perpetrator,
6 chronology and several other organizational methods. Study of that document proves that there are
7 no statute of limitation issues here and this RICO action is timely under the controlling US
8 Supreme Court doctrine on the subject.
9 1047. OTHER relevant, important, gate-keeping RICO variables and considerations
10 needed to put Remingtons RICO claim into perspective, and to determine its validity, veracity and
11 justification for proceeding forward.
1048. Culpability. As explained throughout these documents and especially in the RICO
12
statement pages 10-94, Gans is the main culpable leader and acting-CEO of this enterprise, and like
13
the Godfather of a Mafia family he is ultimately responsible for every issued order and for every
14
criminal act conducted on his behalf, or in the name of the enterprise, by any of the 35-40 RICO
15
racketeering members. Since Gans issued the orders and condoned the criminal behaviors
16 complained of herein, then he might just as well have pulled the trigger, burned-down the building
17 or destroyed the Burl Trees business property himself, personally. See also GANS RICO
18 ENTERPRISE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART-2017.
19 1049. In the event of a federal civil or federal indictment, all of Gans top named assistants,
20 leaders, complicit law partners and associates, corrupt managers and violent enforcers would also
21 be implicated and charged, and each is separate from Gans enterprise, whether acting
independently or under specific orders. The Godfather, say Gans Corleone, is not the family or
22
the entire enterprise, just its leader. He is arguably the most guilty and worthy of the worst
23
punishment, because planning, financing and solving all necessary problems, in order to facilitate
24
the execution of serious criminal acts is required to activate the criminal organization to do
25
anything. Without the leader, many of the enterprise soldiers would languish into depression,
26 lethargic inactivity and then probably be forced by their wives or children to seek honest and
27 legitimate work. The enterprise leader motivates his men, feeds them, organizes them, teaches
28 them, sparks-them and essentially starts-them-up like an automotive ignition or ignition key.
Without getting overly philosophical, is the ignition key more important than the motor in the
criminal bank robbers getaway car? Probably not, but both are absolutely necessary and work
together just as this RICO organization divides up their labor and activities for maximum effect.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
73
1
Additionally, arguably, it is not the evil and criminal car or its key that commits the wrong, but in
2
actuality it is the human driver that has the evil intent.
3
1050. Consequently, here Gans Enterprise is like a car which Linda Lawrence paid for
4
initially, and now Gans, with a huge amount of help from his inner top leadership, gases-it-up,
5
makes sure the battery is charged, the ignition is good and then HE PERSONALLY turns-the key,
6 activating the corrupt RICO engine and vehicle, numerous times a day so that said car can do its
7 destructive and criminal acts against Remington. Arguably, the key, ignition, gasoline and engine
8 are not really criminally corrupt in a bank robbers getaway car, and it is really a criminal person
9 who activates all of those mechanisms which should go to prison, and not the car itself. Here, Gans
10 has plenty of human, high-powered attorney and scientific expert advice, and the other 11-named
11 defendants are not the enterprise either, without the brain and evil motivation of their leader. They
are just working within it, sometimes independently, but usually under direct orders from Gans, his
12
top assistants in the Mitchell firm, or from each other, as needed, under the hierarchical and
13
organizational plans graphically portrayed in Volume III of this document. Enterprise orders or
14
wishes are usually executed with some amount of individual discretion, because the majority of
15
the members are intelligent professionals capable of acting on their own volition, although 10-20 or
16 more of the lower soldiers do absolutely nothing on their own and get specific orders from Gans,
17 whom he usually intensely coaches, as all Gans enterprise members must carefully and
18 meticulously rehearse their testimony or planned actions with him, and then memorize his orders
19 and suggestions for proper regurgitation as needed, because just telling the truth is absolutely not
20 an option for any member of Gans enterprise. Several people, as named have been fired by
21 Gans for attempting to be forthright, and to tell the truth in good faith, but that does not work with
Gans, and inferentially right now there have been as many as 5-6 former enterprise members in
22
good-standing that have either resigned or been fired for refusing to commit federal crimes or
23
perjury under Gans orders.
24
Mental State, and The Intentionality of The RICO defendants Criminal Actions.
25
1050. Remington has pleaded herein, described and fully established the preliminary facts
26 that each defendant did knowingly engage in the corrupt conduct alleged and all defendants had
27 sufficient actual big picture knowledge of the overall illegal, corrupt objectives and illicit
28 activities of the enterprise, to fully establish culpability.
1051. Many of the lower-level operatives and even some of the more sophisticated
environmental experts and perjurious percipient witnesses may possibly not have been fully
apprised of all of the enterprises objectives as clearly as they are defined herein, however that is
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
74
1
not fatal to a RICO cause of action here. Factually, it is well-known that most, and probably all of
2
the RICO defendants knew at least two of Gans most important objectives: 1) Make as much
3
money for themselves and Gans as possible, and 2) Do whatever it took, irregardless of what was
4
known to be the true facts and any oaths were said witnesses swore to tell the truth, in direct or
5
cross-examination, or in depositions and declarations, to professionally and discreetly, but
6 conclusively hurt Remingtons personal credibility, destroy his experts proofs and tests of the facts
7 which exist on the contaminated sites, all with the single-minded objective of damaging and
8 preferably destroying Remingtons entire case, irrespective of the fact that it was obviously just and
9 there is a massive amount of ultra-hazardous contaminated debris to remove. In many known cases,
10 but not in 100% of all cases that we have full knowledge about now, the total financial and personal
11 destruction, or annihilation of Remington, was deliberately intended and believed to be likely.
Obvious examples of that are fully explained in detail in the RICO statement, and would include
12
John Mathson, Skillings, Costa and Kishpaugh, and their absolutely known to be flagrantly false
13
sworn testimony. On the other hand, Pulleys trial testimony was somewhat more ambiguous,
14
truthful, unrehearsed and not clearly directed by the RICO enterprises corrupt leadership to fulfill
15
their objectives. Whether Gans explained all of his objectives to Pulley was not fully obvious and
16 also appears to be very unlikely from his fact-based testimony, which did not directly attack
17 Remington necessarily. As noted elsewhere, it was very wrong overall, however Pulley honestly
18 acknowledged what his work was and who gave him the wrong information, which he did not
19 attempt to defend because he had no independent verification thereof. As a result of Pulleys clear,
20 intentional attempts to stick to the honest facts, he has not yet been named as a RICO defendant,
21 and is the only Gans witness from the 2016 SOL trial to achieve that status.The above group of
four (4) bad faith perjurers, eight lines above, were all smart enough to know that Remington was
22
displeased with their testimony, and there false sworn testimony was very intentional, deliberate
23
and intended to unconditionally, unethically and wrongfully to win Gans case right then and there.
24
Therefore, Gans was thrilled with it and also knew that it was obvious that, although known by
25
themselves, and ALL of them to be factually untrue, nevertheless, if it was accepted by the jury,
26 then it would destroy Remingtons case potentially. Since said above defendants knew that their
27 testimony was either entirely false or partially false, that imputes intentionality to fulfill the
28 enterprises corrupt objectives, in Remingtons estimation. In other words, all four (4) of the above
named defendants and/or near-defendants can be inferred to have committed intentional unlawful
predicate acts, but of varying severity.
21 John Mathson, Olson, Kluck, Nelson and Skillings, et al, and not placing themselves fully at the
mercy of that criminal bunch, all of which can easily be implicated and convicted here, bringing-
22
down all of the others who have assisted or corruptly fraternized with, or otherwise facilitated their
23
RICO crimes in any respect. Did they knowingly assist? If so, when, how, was it intentional or
24
just innocent error, and what would be the proof thereof?
25
1056. To plaintiff, it would seem that anything that any of the enterprise members does
26 intentionally going-forward, after reading these documents, which is based upon the numerous
27 corrupt and unlawful Gans orders, would be knowing assistance to a criminal enterprise, and
28 thereafter everyone named here is now basically on notice and on their own. In other words, it is
now going to be hard for someone like BOTH Kishpaughs, Costa or say Joy Mathson to be able to
plead ignorance or insanity about what was and IS really going on here. Maybe some or all of these
members will have to satisfy district attorney, FBI, Remingtons attorney investigators or other
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
77
1
scrutiny, or maybe not. If not, Remington is perfectly content to proceed logically and
2
comprehensively with sworn discovery and sworn trial testimony, to eventually ferret-out the truth
3
and implicate the perjurers who conflict with the truth and who are unable to consistently recall all
4
of Gans false coaching points for a period of several years. For example, Costa was so calm and
5
well-rehearsed with his false and contrived recalls a very insignificant detail from a birthday 20
6 years ago! That worked great when the element of surprise was present but thats now been lost and
7 if he persists with that he could wind-up doing jail time, when Remington proves he was out of
8 town on the date of Costas allegedly birthday. Costa is a practiced, excellent and calm perjurer
9 who would be hard to break, but what will happen when Joy Mathson, Plotz and/or both
10 Kishpaughs decide to tell the entire and whole truth? Where will that leave Costa and his
11 ridiculous fabricated stories that totally defy credulity?
1057. Further, and importantly, the equally or more important environmental component of
12
these litigations is entirely scientifically based, and sufficient tests now exist in the files from
13
numerous independent, competent and entirely reliable testing professionals. As discussed above,
14
Gans cannot make up the accurate scientific facts here, which are real and irrefutable. Gans cannot
15
make-up his own facts, here, there are just actual facts and actual fictions, deceptions and false
16 facts. Gans raises numerous prejudicial doubts and complaints, however he has absolutely zero
17 factual evidence that refutes any of Remingtons actual facts, because Gans did not intentionally do
18 even one test on Remingtons land, therefore he cannot be heard to complain about Remingtons
19 testing, when he could have done his own, for 10 years. Therefore, it is now mostly a simple matter
20 of overturning Gans frivolously, erroneously and/or alleged possibly corruptly obtained collateral
21 estoppel, and thereafter going-on to additional trials here or in DR140426, based on the inviolable
and irrefutable 2011 scientific testing, essentially. Collateral estoppel is improper here, but it
22
may now take a state appellate court to determine that, or preferably this court, which was the
23
initial and primary reason for bringing this lawsuit, before additional study proved that the reason
24
these cases had persisted this long was because Remington was essentially facing a Mafia-like
25
crime family, operating out of the offices of a local law firm.
26 1058. As we have argued throughout these documents, Gans RICO enterprise is now still
27 trying in real time to greedily and illicitly obtain, among many other things, all of Remingtons
28 northern Burl Tree property free, without any testing or rental costs, cleanup expenses or any of the
numerous other damages requested herein. Then, as repetitively explained, the RICO gang intend
to make Remington pay very dearly for that privilege of being robbed, extorted and humiliated in
the community for years to come, and there-after ruined and bankrupted financially via deadly
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
78
1
serious, although legally entirely frivolous, malicious prosecution, punitive damage, costs and
2
attorney fee suits, some of which have already been drafted and/or filed.
3
1059. Some of the above-named, presently perceived probable weakest links in the RICO
4
enterprise, for the reasons espoused above, are fully aware of said above Gans unethical and
5
corrupt plans, purposes and objectives, which include in part only: to fraudulently and illegally
6 obtain Remingtons money and property by means of frivolous lawsuits, materially false and
7 fraudulent pretenses, known fraudulent and incompetent scientific representations, obstruction of
8 justice, witness tampering, suborning perjury, evidence spoliation, money laundering, deprivations
9 of Remingtons civil and common law rights, etc., as specifically delineated in the RICO statement,
10 fully included by reference in this paragraph. Take McBride and Plotz, for example:
11 1060. Both understand better than Remington does, exactly what Gans was, has been and
still is plotting going forward; and, what he actually has done and now intends to do going-forward
12
here in 2017-20, now that he has such a high-powered and sophisticated finely-tuned RICO
13
machine barreling forward with tremendous nearly unstoppable momentum. Both also fully
14
understand and appreciate the threat that Remington poses, and therefore exactly how the
15
enterprise expects to illicitly when these cases no matter what crime that entails and what specific
16 methods and personnel they intend to use to either destroy or possibly kill Remington in the years
17 to come, and the sooner all of that occurs, the cheaper it will be to Lawrence and her superiors who
18 undoubtably are displeased with sGans and her performances, to date.
19 1061. Since at least fall 2015, if not 2013, it would have been impossible for thoughtful,
20 intelligent direct assistants to a Mafia Godfather (such as McBride, Plotz, Kloeppel, Ferriman,
21 Kluck, ETC.) to have had a genuine, good-faith belief that Gans and they were operating ethically
and legally in any respect with regards to Remington. Just getting very well-paid and claiming that
22
they are merely following vague orders that they did not understand at all, just to avoid being fired,
23
and to just keep harmoniously getting along in the enterprise, and keeping their inflated
24
paychecks coming, is not an acceptable excuse when committing federal crimes. That type of
25
excuse did not work for Hitlers inner circle and its little better for Gans similarly conspiring
26 leaders, if on a smaller and less grandiose or violent scale, so far. The above accessories to these
27 conspiratorial crimes are all very thoughtful and sophisticated people, who all fully understood
28 what they were doing or should have known that they were gravely and unjustly damaging
Remington by conspiring to commit unlawful acts against him.
1062. Therefore, at a bare minimum, none of the above have any defense at all to mail and
wire fraud, which are presently the chief allegations against most of them, with likely much more
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
79
1
to follow. Ferriman also has made numerous egregious scientific errors and falsely sworn that they
2
are true, which will become very serious in the new federal lawsuit, when he repeats them under
3
oath once again. Kluck also is somewhat different from the others above, with one alleged act of
4
extortive intimidation, one act of state obstruction of justice in his pursuit of a bogus overturning of
5
a lawfully required default judgment by means of making confusing and false representations to
6 judge Reinholtsen, which said court could have verified were false, but does not want to be seen as
7 taking the side of a hated pro per against a long-time friend and 40-year long, highly respected, at
8 least at one time, officer of the court.
9 Extortion is the primary predicate act alleged herein.
10 1063. Said extortion is primarily of Bruce Remington, but also involves several of his
11 witnesses, especially Figas, as explained individually above, and in the RICO statement, which is
the primary topic from pages 305-489.
12
A. Gans, Mathsons and defendants efforts here have always been intended to
13
aggressively take full effective legal control, and to fully and HEAVILY use the over acre of
14
Remingtons land directly adjacent to their property, where they established their dump in 1998-
15
2001 and effectively fully appropriated that land at the time of that encroachment. That acre,
16 has effectively been a part of Mathsons backyard and its foundation since 1998, and said
17 contaminated waste dumps also have effectively damaged or destroyed a total of more than acre
18 of Remingtons most fertile, sunny and productive land on the north side of Remington Creek.
19 SEE #1069 Below, for a more thorough discussion of this crucial land theft and critical fact that
20 said stolen land now supports Mathsons entire estate from falling into the ravine issue which is
21 actually the real motivational basis for all of these lawsuits, from defendants side especially.
Until the significance and importance of these issues are fully understood, and the very substantial
22
structural, monetary and related damage components involving the required removal of
23
defendants contaminated debris from Remingtons land and the overall economic ramifications to
24
both sides of that remediation are understood, no court or trier of fact can really resolve anything
25
here.
26 1064. By 2017, extortion under the various pertinent US Supreme Court, and following
27 precedents seems to be the correct generalized term for Gans enterprises attempts to fully and
28 legally obtain most of Remingtons property by inherently wrongful means, which here
involved many years of violent and deliberate property destruction, as per Gillman v. Thomas, 490
F. 3d 791, 799 (10th C. 2007).
21 has here, both macro and with numerous subordinate micro-schemes, artifices and frauds;
B. The intent to defraud someone, such as Remington, his attorneys Harvey Roberts, Hans
22
Herb or William Verick, plus every judge that hears these cases. Can there be any doubt of that
23
here?
24
C. Reasonable foreseeability that the mail or wires will be or were used. That is all that
25
they use, and then repeated again orally at hearings and trials;
26 D. Actual provable use of the mail or wires to further that scheme. Here, Gans uses his
27 phone a great deal with his enterprise members, and has sent at least 20 to 30,000 pages to
28
10. Remington now already has some evidence, before weve even seriously started to gather it,
that this RICO enterprise is not Gans first rodeo. We have already found other disgruntled and
very angry former adversaries willing to backup Remingtons charges of unethical and criminal
acts. When these lengthy and comprehensive documents are filed, Remington will get much more
serious about pursuing this and numerous other relevant, related lines of investigative inquiry.
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
86
1
Remington and many courts, probably 20% of which was substantially fraudulent and at least 10%
2
is now provably so. If 10% of a 10-page motion document is entirely false and fraudulent, is the
3
entire document fraudulent or only part of it? There appears to be no simple cursory answer to that
4
philosophical question, as it would appear to vary, possibly according to its introduction and the
5
objective essential purpose of the document, as being whether to further truth or fraudulent
6 deception. As to the incriminating communications between the RICO racketeering members,
7 clearly ALL relevant phone records, dates and records of, and recollections of, those calls will now
8 be VERY crucial, although what are the chances that 98% of the incriminating records and
9 documentation thereof will NOT be systematically destroyed and then denied? Also, records of all
10 internet searches and all relevant period email records from all enterprise defendants, and All other
11 named ancillary or fringe members will now he sought. But, one of the odds of Remington in Pro
per or with an aggressive attorney actually getting many are any of those important records? That is
12
why enlisting the FBI, US attorneys or local district attorneys will ultimately be crucial to our
13
investigations, and therefore will be focus upon.
14
1083. Interstate commerce. As explained above, the Burl Tree is the victim here that owns
15
the land and property damage by defendants. Today, and since the mid-1990s the Burl Tree does
16 about 95-99% of its business in interstate commerce. In that regard, it is the exact type of victim
17 which the RICO laws were intended to protect and compensate. That would break down to about
18 99% of all its sales over the last 25 years, and currently were and are to points outside of
19 California. Additionally, about 70% of its overall purchases since 2000 or so have also been out of
20 state, and especially his $150-200,000 of wholesale plants were imported, mostly from Oregon and
21 east of the Mississippi. In other words, Remington and the Burl Tree easily meet that criteria and
all prerequisites for a bona fide RICO enterprise lawsuit. What are some of the other numerous
22
critical factors and essential requirements?
23
1084. Relatedness.
24
A. Clearly, all alleged predicate acts here plainly and logically relate to the furtherance
25
and continuation of Gans purposes and the enterprises crystal-clear objectives as plainly stated by
26 Gans and unambiguously written over several years. All of that will be easy to prove in this court
27 or at any trial from present records, but obviously MUCH more is available, discoverable and also
28 plainly present or induced from the written and stenographic records here, and as summarized
above or fully set-forth in several different places herein, including pages 390-410 of the RICO
statement.
21 RICO lawsuit is valid and appropriate is still quite subjective in most practical applications.
B. Even a bona fide Mafia organization can be difficult to nail and convict under
22
RICO, especially without one credible informant, several prominent inside witnesses telling the
23
truth, or without several kidnappings, witnessed strong-arm extortion attempts, brutal violence
24
and/or several witnesses to serious bribery, counterfeiting, provable monetary swindling crimes,
25
etc. Usually, Any well-financed and creative offending criminal can almost always raise a spirited
26 defense, deny all and accuse the other side of being biased, crazy, wrong or here, just in Pro Per,
27 so What do you expect? In this case, we are not wrong, but our road is difficult, because even if
28 the enterprise murders Remington, that is not a guarantee of victory for his heirs, because murder
surprisingly not an instant federal predicate act, in itself!
1091. The multiple facts test is one of the other many tests which a court may or is
expected to use to determine if a RICO case can continue towards justice, or not. Here, in the
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
90
1
event of the or not, then Remington will very quickly file this RICO action in state court, after
2
suitable state modifications and rather crippling limitations.
3
Said multiple facts test analyzes:
4
(A) The number of predicate acts and their severity. Here we have many in number, some
5
that are severe, in overall a very serious and damaging pattern of harm to Remingtons business
6 interests;
7 (B) The variety of predicate acts. Again, here we have identified so far at least 17 different
8 types, even before substantial discovery, which discovery is expected to increase the variety of
9 criminal acts somewhat, as well as to multiply the number of said crimes in those 17 categories, by
10 at least two;
11 (C) The length of time over which said predicate acts were committed. Here, the term is at
least four years, with their rotten roots and precedent corrupt, evil and unethical acts going back
12
further;
13
(D) The number of victims. Here, we have five or six primary ones, but thousands of them
14
within a few miles of the contaminated sites, where airborne and waterborne contaminants can
15
reach;
16 (E) The existence of separate, creative corrupt devices and disingenuous schemes. As
17 discussed above, Gans RICO racketeering enterprise operates in many diverse ways, including
18 performing many perfectly legal, routine and ordinary ministerial advocacy acts, filing, document
19 copying, ETC., plus conducting and pursuing their vast amount of corrupt illegal schemes and
20 artifices with clear and logical illicit, improper and fraudulent actions, also being undertaken
21 essentially daily, in furtherance of said corrupt, disbarable and/or imprisonable schemes. Here,
Gans employs at least 40 knowingly and a few probably unknowingly corrupt RICO soldiers to
22
further Gans constant major disingenuous activities and corrupt, unethical sub-routines of his
23
overall RICO disingenuous scams and plans, which ultimately have severely mischaracterized and
24
misrepresented every single known material issue in these cases. In other words, Gans has many
25
dozens of corrupt mechanisms, illegitimate devices and methods of always attempting to arrive at
26 the same RICO objective, which as alleged many times above is still to win by any ruthless and
27 extralegal means necessary, and almost equally important, to trample and/or leave Remington for
28 dead in the process, as he has laughingly and boasted for years that he will do;
(F) The occurrence of distinct, actual, real and measurable injuries. Here, the severe harm
done to the Burl Tree and to Remington, whether personally, financially, emotionally and in all of
11 vandalisms involving numerous randomly cracked or smashed large expensive six-foot tall
Anderson dual-pane windows by Mathsons rocks, plus the other personal property complained
12
about, Remington has had to maintain an excessive amount of Homeowners insurance to enable a
13
complete rebuild and a full-replacement of the several hundreds of thousands of dollars of valuable
14
items inside. He also has to keep electronic backup copies of all documents and records outside of
15
the structure, and be very wary and cognizant of where he stores various valuables. For example,
16 right now today, Remington has approximately 1000 pages of un-filed federal complaint
17 documents, which could be destroyed in two minutes by another arson fire. Therefore, tonight like
18 every other night, Remington will save todays thousands of words of additional word processing
19 to a portable digital Cruzer storage device, so that he can carry all of these old and new federal and
20 state legal documents out of here daily, in order to be protected in the event of that next fire
21 occurring tonight.
1100. What is the standard of proof required in a civil RICO action?
22
Since Sedima v. Imrex, 473 US 479, 491 (1985) every Court of Appeals that has addressed
23
the subject has held that the preponderance standard applies to civil RICO actions, see Wilcox v.
24
First, 815 F 2d 522, 531 (9th C.1987).
25
1101. Attorneys fees are recoverable by the prevailing prosecuting plaintiff, but not by
26 the accused defendants. Presumably, some of Remingtons legal costs and time will be recovered
27 at least at the rate of a paralegal, if this court or jury determines that Remingtons writing and
28 research in these various environmental and RICO areas has any merit. In any case, at the
appropriate time, such as under the sections about harms caused and damages requested,
Remington will request compensation for some of those 10-20,000 hours of legal time spent here,
21 motion-writing drafters, for Gans express approval, who during active periods of these multiple
litigations spent full-time on these cases cranking-out dozens of nicely-processed, sloppily
22
researched, newly crafted and/or fabricated pages every day. However, for the last several years
23
virtually everything they have done, on behalf of their RICO enterprise, involves, for example:
24
Prosecuting their sham defensive litigation against Remingtons 2-3 cases, with such technical and
25
essentially frivolous drivel which included: numerous Motions to Strike, Demurrers, Objections to
26 all Remingtons experts, motions to amend his complaint and a dozen other topics, and ALWAYS
27 with incessant, inflated and obviously frivolous requests for sanctions for literally everything
28 which Remington requests or opposes. 100% of which have been denied since 2011. Dozens of
other types of bogus or entirely sham and/or knowingly false documents with little or no
merit included, without limitation, Gans severance motion opposition documents and their
numerous MIL #20 motions, some of which frivolous, improper or false, badly-researched
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
101
1
requests, such as related to their collateral estoppel work, seriously confused Judge Reinholtsen
2
and resulted in the severe disruption of these cases, which continues. Remington cited dozens of
3
other similar unethical and worse intentionally corrupt examples of the enterprises documents in
4
the RICO statements.
5
1120. More than 20-pages of meticulous detail and specific proofs of the above exist in the
6 RICO statement, and Remington expects to add at least 200 more, so far discovered pages, alleging
7 new mail fraud essentially, which are already in progress to follow in the FAC or the state version of
8 this RICO action if required; however, for now, said above they (including Kloeppel and Brisso,
9 where appropriate and just), are Gans right-hand men. Thus, Gans has plenty of able
10 brainpower and administrative researchers and legal writers to make his life very easy.
11 Cumulatively, they all also help to manage Gans private army of experts, corrupt witnesses and
property-destroying vandals and soldiers, while exerting improper influence, passing along
12
fraudulent and corrupt orders, and otherwise colluding and communicating with and among the
13
RICO conspirators. Again, as in all other cases, see RICO statement for at least 5-6 times more
14
detail, about all of these allegations.
15
1121. John Mathson is one of the original defendants in the contamination lawsuits, and
16 now serves as Gans chief criminal enforcer. As noted, he is one of the fundamental core
17 members of the RICO enterprise, whereas his wife Joy Mathson has happily not yet
18 implicated herself here into this bottomless whirlpool of proven very serious federal
19 potentially imprisonable violations, YET.
20 1122. John Mathson is discussed fully at RICO statement pages 108-136 and his impact on
21 Remington, the Burl Tree and these cases cannot be properly condensed, here. As discussed above
and also below under pattern of racketeering activity, Mathson has arguably personally
22
committed more federal predicate crimes than anyone else involved here, even Gans. Gans ordered
23
these extortive acts in general terms and sometimes on specific dates, however John Mathson loves
24
torturing and tormenting Remington so much, that he improvises and does a little extra, because
25
thats the primary focus of his entire life, as we will prove during the next round of discovery.
26 However additionally, as also argued above, since John Mathson is essentially a marionette and a
27 handheld puppet, he is fully controlled by Gans in the broadest possible sense. Therefore, he is like
28 a soldier in Hitlers army: Guilty of more than 100 serious crimes in literally 15 different
categories. He is as guilty as a cowardly, traitorous torturer can be, and if not deserving of
execution, he deserves some very serious punishment. But is he more guilty and worthy of
punishment than Hitler himself? Probably, we will get his opinion during discovery, but ultimately,
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
102
1
that will be up to a trier of fact here, after Remington expresses his extremely strong but perhaps
2
non-objective opinion during closing arguments. Remington has extensive incriminating
3
surveillance footage on John Mathson, e. g. Photo #54.
4
1123. Rich Olson and Kyle Skillings of RAO Construction. Those two criminal
5
excavation contractors and truckers are fully discussed at pages 163-176 of the RICO statement.
6 They have both coordinated the extortion and intimidation of Remingtons remediation expert Bob
7 Figas, which was one of the first egregious and damaging criminal acts caused by this enterprise,
8 Subsequently, Skillings in particular has had a strong influence on these cases, and maintains a very
9 conspicuous and dangerous profile here. He has now fully proven himself to be an established
10 serial perjurer, as well as a brutal and violent soldier to be greatly feared by everyone on
11 Remington side of the case. Inferentially, that is the intended frightening effect that Gans intends
for him to have. He is a salaried employee of Olson and RAO, neither of whom have yet made an
12
appearance in these lawsuits, and also works for Kluck. Skillings is strongly expected to prove that
13
he is a violent force to be feared and capitulated to in these cases, and presumably he will prove his
14
worth and manhood by attempting some violent acts against the Remington family before long. As
15
soon as written discovery begins in this case he will be forced to repeat his perjured state testimony
16 in federal written discovery of all types, which will totally implicate him instantly, since that
17 perjury by all of them is easily provable in the next trial, where a proper foundation can be
18 established this time. Olson is a known, long-time well-established ruthless concrete contractor and
19 local criminal, as outlined above, but we will need extensive discovery and numerous witnesses
20 from within his concrete construction organization, from his subcontractors, plus some of his
21 customers, to prove his generally unsavory and unreliable ethical reputation in the community, and
his reputed frequent contamination and unlawful dumping, over many years at other local sites.
22
1124. Linda Lawrence, believed to still be a chief insurance adjuster, handling the
23
Mitchell firm and RICO accounts at the Sacramento office of Allied Insurance Company, in Des
24
Moines, Iowa, who is here sued as an individual, because she knew about, intended or should have
25
known about all of Gans progressively more criminal activities. She financed it gladly,
26 enthusiastically, maliciously and presumably will continue to do so until Remington is dead and
27 gone from the scene. She is discussed in more detail, at pages 94-108 of the RICO statement,
28 which describes some of the presently known specific predicate acts she has already committed,
and is soon expected to double or triple that number, once discovery commences in this case.
1125. Jeff Nelson is the enigmatic, grizzly old CEO of SHN Engineering and Consulting
who was the supervisor and boss of Remingtons two primary local environmental experts,
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
103
1
Aveggio and Foget. To Remington he is best-known for his shocking, perfunctory, unfeeling
2
tortious contract-breaching act of removing expert contamination engineer Foget, from his case a
3
mere few weeks before a prospective trial date. At that time, Foget was the foundation of
4
Remingtons entire trial presentation, analogous to the leadoff man and anchor leg of a mile relay
5
team.
6 1126. Remingtons preeminent environmental expert Aveggio died of purported natural
7 causes, obviously worsened by his exposure to the infectious toxic wastes on these sites, which
8 have also nearly killed Remington several times recently, as complained of elsewhere.
9 Subsequently, Foget was hired, trained and paid to replace Aveggio with Nelsons full-knowledge,
10 participation and approval, but approximately two years later was corruptly removed by the
11 tortious breach of contract explained for 15 pages at 2I, see approximately pages 187-205.
Remington has reliable information which implicates both Gans and Nelson in a collusive
12
racketeering relationship, intended to damage or destroy Remington and benefit themselves,
13
proportionately. Discovery, including depositions, from the middle and lower levels of both of
14
these organizations, especially the secretarial staff, such as McBride and her SHN counterparts,
15
will be useful and important to prove all of the links that have been alleged here.
16 1127. Nelson has been involved in the numerous illicit state predicate acts, one serious
17 tortious, VERY damaging contract breach, and a few federal crimes to date. During federal
18 discovery, like many of the others, he is expected to bury the knife in deeper, federally, as he lies
19 to justify, rationalize and exonerate himself. He has already severely extorted and intimidated
20 Remington on behalf of Gans, assisted with witness tampering with Foget, committed numerous
21 acts of mail and wire fraud while simultaneously obstructing justice, and retaliated against
Remingtons primary environmental expert witness Foget. Foget was very excited and intensely
22
interested in becoming Remingtons environmental testifying trial expert, so Nelson not only
23
damaged Remington but also Fogets career and treated him like a robotic slave. That is allowable
24
in a professional working relationship, however Remington was not the only one damaged by the
25
RICO enterprise over this issue. Finally, Nelson violated federal law, 1952 with regard to
26 interstate travel with illicitly laundered funds derived from these RICO relationships.
27 Since the allegations against Nelson are somewhat convoluted, complex and lengthy and take
28 about 15-pages to explain, Remington essentially defers to those pages.
Pattern Of Racketeering Activity
1128. The count one defendants agreed to conduct and did knowingly participate in the
conduct of the enterprises obviously partially corrupt affairs through the clear pattern of
PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS TWO RICO CAUSES OF ACTION-JANUARY 2017
104
1
racketeering activity described and for the unlawful purpose of intentionally defrauding plaintiff
2
through bogus scientific and legal subterfuge, to reach their stated objectives. Until Remington
3
actually came to understand the significance and extreme illegality of Gans unusual, creative and
4
incredibly unexpected pattern, beginning in fall 2016, Gans RICO extortion racket against
5
Remington was flawlessly and magnificently successful. It is also still working today, but less so
6 going forward.
7 1129. At this point, it really is necessary to summarize or specify each instance where each
8 individual defendant conducted and participated in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise,
9 through a pattern of racketeering activity. Simply put that means what were the individual
10 criminal acts allegedly committed by each named defendant and what was the exact time, specific
11 place and what were all relevant details surrounding those specific acts?
A. That is a problem here, because we already have 700+ pages or more devoted to those
12
facts. To specifically list again the several hundred fraudulent, improper and unlawful acts
13
associated with the 11-named defendants, which we have already fully- alleged based on our
14
present discovered information, would be redundant, excessive, onerous, counterproductive and
15
therefore Remington declines to do so again here.
16 1130. Irritating and unlikely as it may be for the court, or some of the other readers to now
17 seek out the details, if any are desired at this point, by way of references to the approximately
18 738-page RICO statement, plus indexes and the photos in Volume III, nevertheless that is what
19 Remington will now suggest. All required details are there, easily found from the indexes, and page
20 numbers and therefore some of those are now provided.
21 A. Pages one through approximately 208 discuss in detail the alleged predicate act
violations of all of the named defendants, including sufficient details to allow this complaint to go
22
forward.
23
B. The next 107 pages provide a summary of essential details about the additional
24
wrongdoers which is #3 of the accompanying RICO Case Statement Standing Order Form.
25
C. All of the information which might ideally be included here now at #1128 (The detailed
26 pattern of racketeering activity by this allegedly RICO enterprise) is consolidated and included at
27 5. (a) and (b), on pages 307-488 on the day this paragraph was written.
28 In the RICO statement and index that category is shown as: 5. (page 246)
1131. Describe In Detail The Pattern Of Racketeering Activity:
26 chronological listing and discussion of Defendants corrupt RICO enterprises activities over
27 the last four years.
1134. Additionally: For individual discussions of each named RICO defendant, their
28
misconduct and the alleged federal statutes violated and predicate acts committed for the unlawful
purpose of intentionally defrauding plaintiff, see Remingtons 738-page RICO statement at the
7 18 USC 1952. Barring interstate travel with racketeering or gambling income, applicable here;
8 10. 18 USC 1956. Money laundering uses are illegal, and ALL RICO Defendants are guilty;
9 11. 18 USC 1957. Specifically bars property sales or purchases with laundered dirty money;
10 12. 18 USC 1961-4, et seq. Money laundering: barring illegal profit investments in businesses;
11 13. 49 USC 5101, et seq,. Improper safety and permitting for hauling hazardous wastes;
12 14. 15 USC 2607, 2614-15 and 2642. Violations of many hazardous materials hauling laws;
13 15. 42 USC 1983, Miscellaneous actionable deprivations of Remingtons rights by defendants.
14 16. 42 USC 102, Selling, using and dealing in various, named controlled substances.
15 Those specific federal predicate acts set forth above constitute an actionable pattern of
16 racketeering activity by Gans RICO racketeering defendants, pursuant to 18 USC 1961 (5).
17 1137. Additional details. The Count One (I) RICO defendants have directly and indirectly
18 conducted and participated in the conduct of the enterprises affairs through the above described
19 pattern of racketeering and related litigatory activity, in violation of 18 USC 1962 (c).
20 1138. The above-cited RICO defendants have engineered and launched a wide-ranging
21 campaign against Remington and Humboldt County Superior Court, the Health Department and in
22 the local community, entirely based on false and misleading statements, known incompetent testing,
23 frivolous investigations by governmental agencies, ongoing harassment, disruptions and destruction
of Remingtons business operations and Gans is essentially demanded a tribute from Remington
24
involving him dropping more than $500,000 of costs and just damages before they will stop
25
tormenting and damaging Remington and his family.
26
1139. All of the above and all of the acts contained within these filed documents were done
27
with the intent and effect of causing the reasonable fear in Remington that defendants enterprise
28
would continue to cause greater and greater losses and damages forever, within our lifetimes, or
well- beyond, if necessary.