United States District Court Northern District of California

Case No: 17-cv-02007-JST 1 REMINGTONS FAC, August 2017
Bruce Remington, in pro se

1
5149 Blackberry Lane
2 Eureka, California, 95503
Telephone: 707-666-9145
3
Email: Brucerem@suddenlink.net
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BRUCE CASE NUMBER: 17-cv-002007-JST. Jury Trial Demanded
10 REMINGTON,
11 PLAINTIFF REMINGTONS FIRST AMENDED 2017
SUCCESSIVE ACTION COMPLAINT (FAC) FOR CONTINUING
12 ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES, FOR THE THREE YEARS
13 PRIOR TO SUIT, REMOVAL, REMEDIATION, INJUNCTIVE &
DECLARATORY RELIEF, ASSUMPTION OF FEDERAL
14 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (RULES 65, 57 & 11 USC 1367),
15 Plaintiff, AND RICO DAMAGES, 18 USC 1962 (c) & (d), SPECIFIED IN
THE RICO STATEMENT; (condensed to 50 pages), WITH 30
16 CAUSES OF ACTION:
17 v. I. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AS TO CE IN DR080678 (Rule 57);
II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, UNDER TSCA, 15 USC 2601-2627;
18 III. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CAA, 42 USC 7401-7671g;
19 JOHN MATHSON, IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CWA, 33 USC 1251-1387;
JOY MATHSON; V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER SDWA, 42 USC 300f-300j-26;
20 RAO VI. CONTINUING SUCCESSIVE RCRA VIOLATIONS;
CONSTRUCTION, VII. SUCCESSIVE CERCLA RELIEF, 42 USC 9601-9662, CFR 302.4;
21
INC, RICH OLSON,
VIII. VIOLATIONS OF THE VWPA of 1982, 18 USC 1512-15;
22 KYLE SKILLINGS;
RUSSELL GANS, IX. FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS, 31 USC 3729 (a) (1) (A & G);
23 RYAN PLOTZ, X. INJUNCTION FOR RETAINING WALL AND LAWFUL
PAUL BRISSO, STATUTORY DISCOVERY INSPECTION OF MATSONS LAND
24 XI. STATUTORY CONTRIBUTION;
JULIE GILBRIDE,
25 NICHOLAS XII. CALIFORNIA PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE,
KLOEPPEL, REMEDIATION AND DAMAGES, CACI 2030;
26 MITCHELL, XIII. CONTINUING TRESPASS FROM 2013-2017, AND
27 BRISSO, ABATEMENT, CACI 2030;
DELANEY & XIV. EQUITABLE INDEMNITY;
28 VRIEZE, LLP LAW XV. STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT FOR ULTRA-HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES;
FIRM;
JEFF NELSON; XVI. UNJUST ENRICHMENT V. RESTITUTION;
JON KISHPAUGH; XVII. STATE NEGLIGENCE & NEGLIGENCE PER SE CLAIMS;
MORGAN XVIII. INTENTIONAL FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, CACI 1900;
RANDALL; BOYD XIX. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (CACI 1901);
DAVIS, AND CITY
1 OF EUREKA; XX. MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO OTHERS, (CACI 1906);
LINDA XXI. CONSPIRATORIAL COLLUSION (CACI 3600);
2 LAWRENCE; XXII. ON-GOING CONSPIRACY (CACI 3601;
AND DOES 1-20, XXIII. AIDING AND ABETTING (CACI 3610);
3
INCLUSIVE, XXIV. FELONY VANDALISM (PENAL CODE 594) AND INTENTIONAL
4 TRESPASS BY ANIMALS (CACI 464);
XXV. EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS FOR SYSTEMATIC
5
INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE;
6 XXVI. SANCTIONS FOR EXTENSIVE CCP 128.7 ETHICS VIOLATIONS BY
ATTORNEY, RUSSELL GANS;
7
XXVII. VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA B & PC 17,200, ET SEQ;
8 Defendants. XXVIII. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (CACI 2201)
AND TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT (CACI 303);
9 XXIX. INDIVIDUAL RICO DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS, 18 USC 1962 (c);
10 XXX. CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO BY ALL ASSOCIATED ALLEGED
ENTERPRISE MEMBERS, 18 USC 1962 (d).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff, Bruce Remington, for causes of action, alleges:

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PARTIES
1
1.This court has jurisdiction over the numerous federal claims1 in this action under its power to
2
hear federal claims, 28 USC 1331. It also can adjudicate the pendant state claims, which all
3
need to be presented at one time, or it may decline to do so. Proper notice of this lawsuit was
4
given to defendants and the appropriate authorities, see ECF #1, Volume I, page 13: 8-13.
5
2. All claims asserted in this complaint arose in this district therefore venue is proper under 28
6
USC 1391 (a) (2), 42 USC 6972 (a), 33 USC 1365 (c) (1), etc, and because the dumped
7
debris, illegal discharges and all violations plus Remingtons contaminated real property are all
8
situated in the County of Humboldt, per 38, page 13 of ECF #1. All defendants2 except for
9
Linda Lawrence are also believed to presently reside in Humboldt County, and also did so
10
during all relevant times described herein.
11
INTRODUCTION
12
3. Very Brief Case Overview: Beginning in 1998 and still continuing today, all the named
13
environmental defendants conspired in a highly profitable criminal plot to illegally locate, haul, dump,
14
bury and further conceal several million pounds of hazardous contaminated gas station remediated
15
wastes, asbestos and hundreds of other unsuitable debris ON Remingtons adjacent land3,as fully
16
explained in the original 1220-page complaint, all still valid as a detailed factual reference here. That
17 massive felonious trespassing encroachment was discovered in January 2006, and was fully admitted to
18 by defendants in August 2016, and therefore civil liability for their continuing trespassing encroachment
19 and nuisance has now been fully admitted and well-established in this case. Remington now wants
20 defendants and their insurers to remove all contaminated pollutants and non-native toxic materials from
21 his land at their expense, plus reimburse his major litigation expenses for 9+ years, costs of suit, back
rent and all other special and general damages proximately caused by defendants unlawful torts. Two
22
related successive action state cases are still presently on-going in Humboldt County, as defendants
23
settled their previous frivolous offense case, and the current lack of sufficient judicial resources in
24
25 1
See 33 USC 1365 (a) for CWA and 7002 (a) & (b), 42 USC 6972 (a) & (b), 28 USC 1221
26 for RCRA statutes sued under, plus due NOTICE given, as described in more detail on pages 11-13
of the original 279-page, environmental complaint, ECF #1,Volume I. Statutory authority for TSCA,
27 CAA, SDWA, CERCLA, VWPA, FCA AND RICO or provided on the cover of this FAC. See also
pages113-115, ID, for relevant Statutory and Regulatory Background especially related to the
28 RCRA contaminants and CWAs relationship to Remington Creek.
2
Much more detail regarding the names, addresses and roles of the environmental defendants are
provided at pages 13-30 in Volume I (ECF #1), and the RICO defendants were thoroughly discussed
at pages 10-11 of Volume IVA. All 1220 pages of ECF #1 are still true, viable and are hereby included
by reference, as if fully set forth herein. See paragraphs 62-69, and also paragraphs 71-75, etc.
3
See Photos #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 & #15, and actually MOST of photos and charts in Volume III, ECF
#1, NOT reattached here in a mere 50-page summary, for additional relevant facts and information.
Humboldt County Superior Court have brought these cases to a present stand-still, with no significant
1
progress made towards remediation or resolution in more than nine (9) years now.
2
4. One central purpose of this action, Cause of Action #1, is to request a federal court clarification of
3
the ISSUES ACTUALLY FINALLY DETERMINED in Remingtons prior Federal judgment, now
4
fully confused in the State Court. That appears to be a prerequisite for determining BOTH the federal or
5
state allegations in this case. Obviously, this case is also a request for adjudication of the large variety
6 of related issues and actual controversies cited. It is further a citizens enforcement action brought to
7 penalize the criminal polluters, support the publics right to know about these environmental crimes,
8 restore Remingtons adjacent beautiful redwood forest and gardens to their original pristine condition
9 and further to: remove the contaminants from, abate, remediate, and cleanup Remingtons damaged land
10 (per photos), and to otherwise prevent and control the toxic discharges of environmentally harmful
11 liquids, gases and highly dangerous dusts and microscopic bacteria and asbestos particles emanating
from the MANY hundreds of tons of foreign and poisonous filling materials on both properties.
12
Therefore, plaintiff, Bruce Remington is suing his adjacent northern neighbors, defendants, and all
13
of them named, plus the DOES and others named herein for CONTINUING violations of the CWA,
14
TSCA, CAA, SDWA, RCRA, and CERCLA; and, also for the specific types of Continuing Nuisance,
15
Trespass and Negligence causes alleged herein, plus the numerous additional related specific fraud,
16 vandalism, criminal, tort violations, contract breach, RICO and other miscellaneous statutes cited.
17 5. Short statement of case: The Mathsons own the Northern adjacent property to Remington and agreed
18 in 1998 to let their contractor RAO Construction permanently dump approximately 400 10-yard truck
19 loads of toxic, hazardous, contaminated, controlled and other unsuitable debris onto their land to save
20 them $2-5000+ per load at a proper, distant disposal site. Together they intentionally established an
21 illegal Class One residential landfill in the middle of a redwood forest, which extended onto both
properties as it grew larger. Defendants Class I hazardous waste and debris now occupies approximately
22
1/3 acre of Remingtons land, and the contaminated solid and liquid wastes from the landfill especially
23
those originally placed on Remingtons land now infiltrate and adversely impact all soils and waters
24
within and below the dump on the steep mountainside. As a result of defendants massive unwanted
25
contaminated and polluted encroachment onto Remingtons land, damages resulted as alleged in detail
26 in CV-02007, ECF #1, and the state cases. Remingtons entire property is now unmarketable until
27 remediated. After discovery in 2006, Remington repeatedly tried to resolve these issues for two years,
28 but instead Mr. Gans filed a preemptive extortive lawsuit DR 080669 and eventually Remington also
filed a state lawsuit and began testing his property from 2008-2011. All 2011 testing proved that
Remingtons land is severely contaminated and poses an imminent threat to health and the environment.
In August 2011, defendants took some responsibility for their contamination, offered Remington about
$100,000 to help remove some of their contamination, but withdrew it about a week after the federal
court reverse, due solely to Remingtons failure to file a Rule 26 expert report. 5 months later, after
1
his environmental experts untimely death, all settlement offers were canceled, defendants made their
2
RICO decision to defeat Remington, leave all contamination in place, and destroy him financially.
3
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
4
6. Plaintiff owns over 3 acres of heavily redwooded, ocean-view land with a major residential structure
5
in progress at 832 Westgate Drive, currently used for offices and storage, but not full-time living.
6
7. The Mathsons own the much smaller parcel to the north, 778 Westgate, have occupied it since 1970,
7 share a 330-foot boundary with Remington, who liked and trusted his Mathson friends for 25 years.
8 8. In summer 1998, defendants have claimed they partnered with Rich Olson of RAO, Inc. to import
9 about 4000 cubic yards of illegal, controlled, contaminated and other non-native adverse substances for
10 permanent disposal on Mathsons land. No permits of any kind were obtained for this large excavation
11 and mountain-altering project, where many were required. RAOs loader operator Skillings worked for
12 Rich Olson and RAO, who used other hauling subcontractors, including some known unethical ones.
13 9. The Mathsons and RAO dumped all debris and wastes first on Mathsons property, e.g. PHOTOS
#2- #6, #s 12-15, #25-31, etc. Volume III, ECF #1, where Skillings carefully sorted-them, putting the
14
most infectious and lethal toxins onto Remingtons land, layer upon layer, like any public landfill, see
15
ALL photos, and specifically relevant here are #s 1-15, #s 23-26, #42-45, #49-51 and #56, etc.
16
10. This was a creative, criminal get rich quick scheme and project intended to save huge hauling
17
costs from Broadway Street (Highway 101) gas station remediation projects, only 3 miles away, and
18
other local demolition and construction projects, even closer. With $2000-5000/load potentially saved
19 in this 10-minute short-haul conspiracy, only two RAO trucks could net up to $100,000 in a single day,
20 and an estimated $1-2 million total, as they created a massive residential Class One landfill in the
21 middle of Mathsons and Remingtons redwood forest. RAO absorbed all of the high expenses and
22 shared the illicit profits and benefits with the Mathsons, see 267, p. 95, ID, for per day profits.
23 11. Although unaware of this project for many years because of its remote, overgrown and initially
24 inaccessible location across a deep ravine, it is now very obvious to plaintiff from hundreds of hand
25 excavations and tests, exactly what was dumped on Remingtons land, and why Mathson didnt want it.
12. The illicit volume of their illegal Class One residential landfill has been calculated by engineers as
26
OVER 4000 yd., and when defendants ran-out of easy Mathson land to use they then placed the largest,
27
most toxic debris at the southern edge of the mountaintop and pushed them off onto 100% Remingtons
28
property far below, with 600-1000 yards remaining here today, on the banks of the Creek. No more
migration or leaching is needed to make a cause of action. Massive poisons are already here now!
13. During 1998 and while dumping additional materials in later years, Mathson, Kishpaugh, RAO, etc
knew within a few feet of where the property line ran in that area and intentionally ignored it, using
plaintiffs land to support their huge filled-area and lavishly developed backyard above, without consent or
1
compensation to Remington. Joy Mathson swore at her deposition about their overall illicit plan to fill
2
Remingtons huge, wide 50-foot deep ravine to give them more land, usable land, which worked.
3
14. Defendants have admitted to meticulously sorting and carefully placing the most hazardous, toxic
4
and deleterious huge or contaminated objects, like 20,000-pound concrete blocks, large asbestos pipes,
5
Chrysotile, underground leaking gas station USTs, hydraulic lube bay cylinders, piping, lethal silica
6 and asphalt dusts, benzene vapor and infectious bacterial sources from Mathsons unpermitted septic
7 systems,4 which the Mathsons did not want under their half-acre lawn, so Skillings just deliberately
8 rolled the bad stuff off the mountain top, far down into plaintiffs redwood forest. Defendants
9 reshaped the contour of that whole steep mountainside with toxic wastes, which after the debris
10 became about 15-20 deep, Skillings and Mathson totally covered and concealed their crimes with dirt,
11 gravel, infestuous weeds, redwood needles, blackberries, etc., with about 10-tons of redwood branches
on top, which took plaintiff months to burn. Today, that toxic debris remains buried deeply on
12
plaintiffs adjacent property sharply below, per Photos #5, 6, 12-15, etc. Over the years, John
13
Mathson has fully admitted all liability under oath for ALL debris and wastes still buried here.
14
15. In 2005, Remington needed to develop more of his land and completed four (4) bridges across the
15
ravine to gain access to that steep, 60 degree land to plant another two thousand trees and bushes.
16
16. In January 2006, Remington made the disturbing discovery that every square yard of the mountain
17 from Tank C up to Tank A had hundreds of tons of buried concrete, asbestos pipes, lead, PCBs, huge
18 asphalt chunks, and the hundreds of polluted, hazardous materials listed in ECF #1, pages 95-96, ID.
19 17. It took another 2-3 more years to investigate and expert test some of the dumps constituents to
20 learn the toxic contents of defendants wastes, such as lead, asbestos, bacteria, leaking USTs and
21 piping, the soils and gravels contaminated with degraded old hydrocarbon-saturated sands, from around
22 leaking USTs and truck lube bays from the 1950-1960s, the ultra-hazardous 60% chrysotile, HC and
23 metal contaminated waters, while also discovering that most of the worst toxins were submicroscopic,
invisible, airborne and/or dissolved in water, see 289, p. 102; 307-8, p. 108; 295, p. 104-5, ID, etc.
24
18. In October 2007, Remington negotiated a no-cost handshake settlement and oral contract with
25
John Mathson to resolve all known issues, which written codification was approved by John Mathson,
26
but which Mr. Gans quickly killed, by requiring Remington to pay the Mathsons 10-$15,000 for the
27
privilege of keeping their then partially known, non-native debris, whose toxicity was also unknown.
28
19. In February 2008, Remington demanded that Mathson and Gans remove their encroaching debris
and they responded with an immediate survey and a preemptive strike extortive lawsuit, DR080669.
4
See initial complaint, ECF #1, Volume I, 268, Pages 95-96 for best listing of scores of the specific so-far
discovered encroaching substances, and related definitions on pages 97-103, Id. New toxins are often discovered.
20. From 2008-2011, Remington began scientific, expert investigations and discovered the massive
1
extent and volume of the hazardous debris on his land, plus the contamination 200 feet further down
2
the mountain, e.g., See photos #7, #8, page 86 ( 236), ID, and ALL photos, ECF #1, Volume III.
3
21. In 2010, SHN environmental expert John Aveggio discovered the first asbestos pipes and ultra-
4
hazardous chrysotile (60% asbestos) on the surface of the dump, and within the next year another 23-
5
35 large asbestos pipes were found at or near the surface, most still partially buried and extending
6 down several feet into the buried rubble and rocks. Our subsequent careful statistical estimate to 95%
7 confidence limits showed the presence of at least15-20,000 pounds of 20% hazardous asbestos pipes.
8 22. Many of the toxic trespassing substances named at 268 (pages 95-96), as defined on pages 97-
9 103 and tested in soils ( 295), and water ( 296-300), pages 104-105 ID, are proven to be very
10 hazardous to the health of the community, both upwind and down-stream, and to Remington
11 specifically, who has had a variety of acute, near-fatal respiratory and related illnesses in recent years.
12 23. Not all of defendants approximately 2 million pounds of encroaching substances are hazardous,
13 such as the 20,000-pound reinforced concrete and iron chunks, however they are all unwanted, non-
native, adverse, trespassing substances which ruin the land, prevent all fruitful uses of it, cannot be
14
removed except by a huge excavator, occupy plaintiffs land rent-free, and contaminate the creek.
15
24. During John Aveggios extensive August 1-2, 2011 mostly water sampling investigations, he finally
16
determined that the total soil and water impacts of all the waterborne hydrocarbons, bacteria and other
17
poisons, plus the serious friable asbestos inhalation threats, created an actual imminent threat to
18
health and the environment. That threat applied to all living things existing near the dump or
19 downstream from it and especially to Remington and the large neighborhood upwind from the friable
20 asbestos, toxic dusts and several types of hazardous vapors. Especially affected are all public users of
21 the sensitive westerly watercourses near Elk River and the protected wetlands and endangered bird,
22 fish and animal habitats along Humboldt Bay. That declaration was made in writing August 2, 2011.
23 25. Also, in July-August 2011, preeminent environmental expert John Aveggio conclusively proved that
24 all of defendants Blue Rock tests were incompetent and grossly understated by 2-10 times due to them
all being tested drastically out-of-time. Additionally, their tests were intentionally and fraudulently
25
done on the wrong property, were scientifically irrelevant in attempting to equate the toxicity on two
26
different properties, where the hazardous materials were deliberately sorted into two groups, and it was
27
visually and olfactorilly obvious that the oozing contamination was much worse on Remingtons land.
28
26. In December 2011, Maje Hoyos of the Humboldt County Health Departments Hazardous Materials
Unit performed another conclusive set of soil and water investigations and samplings, and as a result
she also found an imminent threat sufficient for her to refer the contamination file on the Remington
property to the Northern Regional Water Quality Control Board, because she knew that her local Health
Department was improperly influenced and not motivated to intervene here administratively and/or
1
intending to cleanup either site. Both investigators Hoyos and Mark Johnson, had stated that sooner or
2
later both contaminated dump properties would have to be cleaned up, however after 2-3 years it
3
became apparent to her and to plaintiff that Mathsons attorneys were protecting them from any cleanup
4
responsibilities, as thoroughly discussed in the RICO statement under Brisso, Martel, Esko and others.
5 27. Point sources, see 329-332 and 337-340, ID for scientific discussions of what they are and
6 where they are on these two properties. Relevant here is that both SHN and the County Health
7 Department, during 2011, each sampled from two to five contaminated water point sources, which
8 clearly flow, trickle, rush and/or ooze from directly under defendants land, onto Remingtons land.
9 28. A continuing nuisance and trespass has been conclusively proven here. All of the CACI 2030
10 and other California statutory definitions cited and referred to herein have been satisfied here since at
least 2011. All environmental experts, including defendants Blue Rock investigators, Ferriman and
11
Gwinn, plus Hillyard have all agreed for at least six years that defendants encroachment can be easily
12
and reasonably removed at minimal expense. Also, all experts and photographs conclusively PROVE
13
that all visual, and scientific contamination variables in both soils and water vary radically in each
14
test and photograph as almost continuous slides, instabilities, development and erosion alter the sites,
15 creating new springs, topography, and new geological features, far down the steep mountainside.
16 29. Additionally, under both California and federal law, this is a successive action case for damages and
17 removal costs for the three years prior to suit, which under the cited statutes can be filed at reasonable
18 intervals, until remediation is started or completed, see 301-303, pages 105-107, ID, for cites.
19 30. Despite defendants extensive and exclusive knowledge of all of the above, since 1998, they have
20 negligently, intentionally, maliciously, conspiratorially and criminally suppressed all of the information
21 which they have about these contaminated sites and waters which flow beneath their dump onto and into
plaintiffs property below, contaminating his soils and springs below. Defendants have allowed, and
22
enhanced the erosion of Remingtons soils and eliminated all fruitful uses North of Remington Creek.
23
31. For example, the twin 6-inch pipes are a very serious nuisance and trespass (NOT a contaminated
24
CWA point source) and continuously release unlawfully high volumes of uncontrolled rainwater
25
runoff, which flows in a noticeable river across Remingtons steep, muddy and unstable land below,
26 causing several major landslides each year, see e.g. ECF #1, 331, page 117, ID and elsewhere.
27 32. In 2009 and again in 2016, Remington duly served defendants and all appropriate officials required
28 under Title 42 USC 6972 (b), CWA and CERCLA, with Notice of plaintiffs intent to sue for cleanup and
removal of their contaminated debris, more than 90 days prior to filing this action, with no response.
33. Remington Creek now has an estimated 80-100 million gallons of potentially clean, drinkable water
flow per year, from rain run-off and underground streams, but it is now severely contaminated and
adversely impacted by defendants Class I hazardous waste dump. Therefore, it cannot be developed as
intended for California drinking water or healthy irrigation, until Remingtons land is remediated and the
1
toxic flows of water flowing beneath Mathsons property, onto plaintiffs land are controlled and treated.
2
34. For the last several years, John Mathson and some of his local gang under Mr. Gans RICO control,
3
have attempted to extort plaintiff and force him to give up these lawsuits, capitulate to the beneficial free
4
encroachment which defendants thrive on, but which threatens to kill Remington and all other adjacent
5
lifeforms. In that regard, beginning in about 2008, Mathson secretly built at least two known secret,
6 clandestine doors intended solely to break and enter into Remingtons property to commit malicious
7 criminal acts. John Mathson also regularly breaks-down, cuts-through or otherwise undermines and
8 penetrates Remingtons strong, very secure security fences, At least 150 times have been documented
9 for many years with photos, notes, dates and surveillance videos. Even today, about once a week,
10 Mathson and his gang break-down the fences, personally leads, entices and/or allows his tamed deer to
11 follow their noses, through a hole in one of Remingtons mile of perimeter fences, to ravage his massive
$300,000+ gardens with 15,000+ major trees and bushes, and a thousand all rare, non-native species.
12
35. The Mathsons peremptorily sued Remington first in July 2008 and Remington followed later with his
13
initial suit DR 080678, still on-going, That lawsuit was based on anecdotal contamination information, no
14
expert opinions or tests from either side, and it took three more years to scientifically test plaintiffs land.
15
36. Over those next three years, both parties spent more than $50,000 on various expert investigations,
16
opinions, depositions and laboratory testing from California and Oregon, see 268-300, ID. From 2008-
17
11, there were more than 100 new crucial, conclusive scientific contamination tests and related sworn
18 expert opinion advancements, but the court refused to allow them into the case by amended complaint.
19 37. Therefore, in order to incorporate that conclusive scientific testing information and the scores of new
20 expert opinions into this litigation, Remington was forced to file a new lawsuit DR140426 incorporating
21 the vast new testing information, the asbestos and chrysotile findings, expert opinion refinements and
22 changes, plus the addition of RAO Construction as a major defendant. That case is now stayed by State
23 Judge Wilson while defendants frivolous, fallacious collateral estoppel allegations are still not properly
understood in state court. Both present state judges are also severely ethically compromised with felony
24
perjury and embezzlement (of their state salaries) charges still pending, GOOGLE it. Any legitimate
25
arbiter of these very serious ethical and RICO allegations, which already reach deep into the thoroughly
26
corrupted Humboldt Superior Court bureaucracy, should have unquestionable ethical integrity.
27
38. In 2009, still prior to the completion of most of the conclusive expert opinions and testing,
28
Remington filed federal case CV 094547 NJV. That case was necessarily secondary to the state actions
and Remington was informed and believed that discovery from both state and federal jurisdictions
would be shared to the extent that they overlapped and accordingly he did not diligently prosecute that
case independently. Additionally, Gans, Linda Lawrence and defendants made a major settlement offer
at the August 2011 Court settlement conference, which was too low, but close-enough for Remington to
1
think about it and focus on counter offers for the next several days. During that time Gans blindsided
2
him with two Pearl Harbor-like sneak attacks with federal PO and SJ motions, which were not met
3
and conferred. The PO motion involving a minor Rule 26 expert report disclosure failure the federal
4
magistrate would not excuse or allow to be filed a couple days late, quickly led a few weeks later to
5 summary judgment against Remington on technical grounds, based on a Rule 37 (c) discovery sanction
6 which BARRED Remingtons environmental expert and all his testing information along with it.
7 39. Subsequently, proceedings in DR 080678 moved along super-slowly, bogged-down by defendants
8 frivolous and persistent collateral estoppel attempts based on fallacious logic and fraudulent statements
9 of what was actually and necessarily determined in the 2011 federal Summary Judgment, which CE
10 issues are now still being litigated in July 2017. Since no administrative or regulatory actions have yet
11 been undertaken by any governmental agency, under the cited state and federal authorities, Remington
continues to have the right to keep suing for removal of defendants encroachment in both state or
12
federal courts until those contaminated and unwanted wastes are fully removed, in good faith.
13
40. Simultaneously with John Mathsons basic vandalism and destruction during 2012-2016, Mr. Gans
14
directed serious extortion attempts, and in 2012-13 Bob Figas was successfully and very damagingly
15
extorted by Gans, Mathson, Skillings and Olson. Mathsons continuous crimes ranged from suspected
16 arson, theft, mayhem to serious destruction of anything of value on Remingtons property, including
17 breaking expensive 6 Anderson windows, sabotaged logging and mill equipment, large irrigation tanks,
18 lines, pumps, plants, etc, including much of Remingtons $300,000 landscaping and planting project.
19 41. By 2015 and escalating especially into 2016, Mr. Gans extortion was a form of BLACKMAIL
20 which affected interstate commerce, intended to keep the substantial property robbed by defendants in
21 1998, with Mathsons continuous extortive destruction in the background, see Volume IV, ID, pages 10-
22 94 and 685-722, as to phone extortion in February 2016, courthouse extortion in June 2016, etc.
42. Damages. As a result of the aforementioned factual allegations Remington has been and remains
23
gravely damaged according to proofs, at XI, pages 269-278, ECF #1, ID, Volume I for environmental
24
damages; Volume II at pages 111-118, 117-118; and in the RICO Statement Vol. IV, pages 656-670, ID.
25
43. The full extent of plaintiffs damages are presently unknown, are increasing daily and when these
26
cases are eventually resolved, Remington will need indemnification from (by) defendants insurance
27
companies against future regulatory costs derived from defendants original criminal dumping violations.
28 44. John Aveggios SHN RAP plan for soil remediation presented and deposed on July 1, 2011 was for
$160,000 for soil removal alone plus regulatory follow-ups, if no indefinite Waterboard monitoring is
required. This plan will include placing a long deep perforated 6-8 drainage pipe at the very bottom of
the debris on the uphill side of the needed retaining wall to capture and control the toxic flows of water
and water borne contaminants from said dumped pollutants, and purify and recycle them below. Today,
1
contaminated waters now flow daily from under and within the dump directly (& 100%) into plaintiffs
2
ground waters, springs, gardens, swamp, into Remington Creek, Elk River, Humboldt Bay and the
3
numerous contiguous protected wetlands and protected species wildlife sanctuaries directly below.
4
45. One of plaintiffs four (4) real estate appraisal experts, David Tidwell, testified at his last deposition
5
on July 6, 2011 that the primary direct environmental damages to Remington are the cost to cure.
6
Here, that means that effectuating our soil and water remediation bids for $260,000 are the minimum
7 required to correct the environmental damages. Other factors are also involved, such as indemnification
8 and likely stigma on the property will also remain even after an effective cleanup, which eventual
9 damages will be unknown until Remingtons property is eventually sold in the fair market place.
10 46. Numerous other state-based general, special, exemplary and RICO damages are also alleged in
11 detail in ECF #1, partially based on defendants reckless, wanton and intentional disregard for the
12 dumps known acute toxicities, which go beyond mere hydrocarbon water contamination, concrete-
asbestos pipes and the removal of 20,000 pound concrete blocks. The biggest single health hazard here
13
are the sub-microscopic, ultra-hazardous chrysotile 60% asbestos particles, floating in winds by the
14
billions, plus the various poisonous dusts and vapors cited which caused Remington severe inhalation
15
injuries and related infectious diseases since 2013, several of which were nearly fatal in 2014 and 2015.
16
47. After all of plaintiffs damages have been calculated, presented and adjudicated at the next trial, the
17
complex restitution versus unjust enrichment profits comparison must be calculated, per ECF #1: 170-
18 75, page 95, 267; ID and in detail in the DR140426 FAC, all incorporated by reference, herein.
19 48. Defendants have paid no rent to Remington ever for their illicit commandeering of, actual robbery
20 of and/or easement across 1/3-1 acre of Remingtons prime agricultural gardening land, which local
21 reasonable rental rate would be $12,000 per year times 20, which equals $240,000 back rent now due.
22 49. Numerous RICO damages to the Burl Tree, possibly subject to treble damages are calculated in the
23 RICO statement, incorporated by reference hereto. Since the Burl Tree IS Remington, when all of this
24 time is devoted to prosecuting or defending against defendants frivolous lawsuits, he can produce no
useful products or sales for his business, with reasonable losses and damages according to proofs.
25
50. Punitive damages are recoverable against all RICO defendants, and all joint contamination-RICO
26
defendants, especially both Mathsons, Mr. Gans and all RAO participants. They have exhibited willful
27
malice, oppression, deceit, continuous conspiratorial frauds, hate, etc, all in conscious disregard for
28
plaintiffs rights, according to proofs. All defendants have now joined the RICO enterprise.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, for Declaratory Relief
under Rule 57, as per its 1937 advisory committee notes, against all defendants5.
5
Plaintiff originally had a complex initial grouping of defendants based on causality and the fact that several
important defendants had not clearly joined the RICO enterprise and its present cover-up of all crimes against
51. Magistrate Vadas 2011 Summary Judgment Order needs a federal judges correct interpretation
1
because as it stands today, Judge Reinholtsen in DR 080678 was admittedly very confused (ECF #45,
2
Exhibit #17, pages 8-9, etc) and eventually succumbed to defendants fallacious logic and arguments
3
in their fraudulently obtained MIL #20 collateral estoppel ruling which has fully stalled these cases.
4
See also ECF document # 45, ID, Exhibit #1 entitled Remingtons June 2017 Notice of Motion and
5 Final Request for a New Trial and Reconsideration under CCP 473 (d) and other statutes. As
6 stated therein and in plaintiffs July 2017 Opposition to Sanctions that document and argument is of
7 crucial importance. If this court accepts Remingtons arguments, then the dominoes will quickly fall
8 against defendants resulting in final resolution of all issues within months rather than decades.
9 52. What REALLY was actually and necessarily determined in this court in 2011 is obviously of
10 crucial importance going forward in this case, pertaining to whether Remington is attempting to
avoid the legitimate doctrine of collateral estoppel (CE) or conversely whether none of the salient state
11
issues from 2008 or especially the very different ones today in 2017, were ever actually necessarily
12
determined by this court in 2011, while rejecting 4 statutory claims due to no expert, and now are
13
erroneously forever barred from resolution. Plaintiff argues that even the 2008 state issues were not
14
identical to anything actually or necessarily determined in this court in 2011, however with at least 95-
15 99% different evidence, better and more recent expert testing and opinion evidence today, fairness,
16 alone necessitates that plaintiff be allowed to move forward in this court, and in state court based upon
17 actually litigated facts, not fraudulent fallacies. The applicability of CE is definitely in doubt here.
18 53. Plaintiff does not request a Declaratory Judgment which will interfere or conflict with, or override
19 any specific state court decision, however, since this courts opinion is extremely important, it will
20 obviously be influential throughout all these cases and is especially necessary in determining whether
it will accept pendant jurisdiction over any or all of these numerous state causes of action, including
21
the RICO and fraud allegations. The state judge has been entirely incapable of deciding what was
22
actually determined at Federal Summary Judgment in 2011 and over the last six years has ruled both
23
ways at least twice, because he has been totally confused and deceived by defendants attorneys. Part
24
of the confusion is whether the dicta surrounding the undisputed facts, FOR THE PURPOSES OF
25 Remington and the Burl Tree. But now to simplify things, instead of having three specific classes of defendants
26 plus the City and SHN, plaintiff has now concluded that the initial torts, criminal or other violations of
Remingtons rights have now all been melted-together into one large RICO cover-up and attempt to ruin
27 Remington financially with sanctions, extortion and a transparent effort to force him to capitulate to the
polluters extortion in the furtherance of their RICO objectives. Remington tried to cooperate with several
28 defendants initially to keep them from joining-up and contributing to the present on-going RICO cover-up. At
the penalty stage here, Remington would ethically argue that there are degrees of guilt among these defendants
ranging from 1-10, however since the several 1-2s are now fully supporting the Enterprises objectives and to
totally crushing Remington, plaintiff now fails to see any significant distinction between them at this stage.
Therefore, he has simplified this complaint by alleging that all 30 causes of action are now directed towards all
defendants, except as possibly qualified in the text, where for example SHNs contract breach would
probably and reasonably not be applicable beyond SHN, Gans and the RICO defendants, to include the
contamination defendants, except as they may all be jointly implicated like the soldiers in an invading army.
THIS MOTION ONLY, which were unrebutted by any Remington expert or evidence allowed into
1
the case, are reasonably or fairly collateral estoppel to any issue in these cases. Even if some federally
2
determined statutory element was identical to some state dependent claim issue back in 2008-2011,
3
before there was any expert from either side in the case, it is very clear that with essentially ALL new,
4
different, and now all agreeing expert evidence in both state and federal cases today, there are no
5 identical issues, which should be barred in this very different contamination case. See also pages
6 121-123, ECF #1, ID, and Remingtons recent Sanctions Opposition documents, including most of
7 those requested for judicial notice, focusing on MIL #20. Proper Declaratory relief here should
8 terminate this controversy. Additionally, under 28 USC 2201, plaintiff seeks a declaration of
9 rights for BOTH state and federal causes of action for the reasons explained in the MIL #20 arguments.
10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION6 (NESHAP, formerly TSCA), against all defendants.
11 54. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, see 15 USC 2601 et seq (1976)
regulates many of the toxins referenced above which defendants placed or pushed onto Remingtons
12
land where they are now situated. Additional toxins are believed to emanate from other regions of
13
defendants property north of the new fence. Those poisonous materials include without limitation:
14
PCBs, lead paint, benzene and carcinogenic hydrocarbon derivative vapors, FUMES, various types of
15
complained of hazardous silica, asphalt and other dusts, airborne infectious bacteria, and microscopic
16 and submicroscopic asbestos and related fibers. Defendants emissions and deposits are in violation of
17 Section 112 of the CAA, and require removal, along with all of the other objectionable, trespassing and
18 encroaching defendants debris. Plaintiff requests that all of the above-referenced hazardous,
19 contaminated and polluted wastes from defendants, on his land, be removed at one time back down to
20 virgin, native soils in order to eliminate most or all of the above air pollutants and associated wastes.
21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION for Rule 65 Injunctive Relief ,
under the CAA, 42 USC 7401-7671g (2000) and 15 USC 2641-2655, against all defendants. As
22
per Footnote #6, all general, and ECF #1 allegations are incorporated by reference into this cause.
23
55. The Western Analytics Laboratory Tests of John Aveggios 2010 field samples on Remingtons
24
land revealed large quantities of 20% asbestos pipe and 60% asbestos Chrysotile plus several other
25
variations of asbestos reinforced pipes and similar friable substances such as Crocodolite. Inferentially
26 there are also invisible friable fibers of asbestos emanating from area sources on Mathsons property
27 also. Such asbestos emissions have adverse environmental effects in all living things in this area and are
28 therefore regulated by the CAA. Defendants actions are and have been in violation of national asbestos
air pollutant standards, and plaintiff in this lawsuit requests that all asbestos be removed from his
property and ideally from both properties. Removing the asbestos, will also remove all air pollutants.
6
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the general allegations of this
complaint, plus any relevant ones in the 1220-page ECF #1 filing, by reference, into this cause of
action, as if the same were set out in length herein.
56. Defendants intentional actions of sorting and then dumping 15-20,000 pounds of asbestos pipes,
1
plus an unknown hundreds of pounds of lethal fibrous chrysotile, and other unknown asbestos
2
compounds onto plaintiffs land was not only a strict civil liability but also a criminal violation of the
3
CAA. Remington demanded that defendants remove their hazardous wastes, but Mr. Gans and his
4
experts literally laughed in Remingtons face during investigations as they refused, causing this
5 citizens enforcement action, requesting this court to order CAA compliance administratively.
6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION, CWA, against all present, covering-up defendants
7 (33 USC 1311, 1342 (a) and (b), 1251 et seq., the discharge of pollutants from point sources to
8 US waters without a NPDES permit, occurred HERE, see also ECF #1, pages 125-7, 356-364, ID.
9 57. Plaintiff re-alleges each allegation contained in the general allegations above, below and also in the
10 1220-page initial complaint (ECF #1), as though fully set forth here. That principle applies to each
11 and every cause of action below, and will not always be repeated every cause, in order to save a page.
58. Defendants continue to make multiple polluted discharges from at least five (5) varying point
12
sources onto Remingtons land, and the twin 6-inch pipes themselves, are not one of those point
13
sources, since 2011, however the gravel-filled ravine containing those pipes IS one of them. 4 of the 5
14
2014-2017 point sources are different from those alleged, but never actually considered, in 2009.
15
59. Subterranean and surface water containing dissolved hydrocarbon materials from the entire dump
16
area on both properties, and especially the exposed portion that is on Remingtons land, causes pushed,
17 dissolved and other chemical states of hydrocarbons, asbestos, PCBs, asphalt dusts, lead, benzene,
18 Chrysotile, silica, calcium silicates, polychlorinated biphenyls, etc (see ECF #1: 129 ( 374 for other
19 named poisons) to move, migrate and flow by gravity lower down the mountain to several (new) springs
20 which emerge strongly on Remingtons land far below, all of which originate directly on or from within
21 Mathsons land. Those processes are expected to continue until plaintiffs land is remediated and the
22 above-referenced perforated drainpipe is installed at the native soil and dumps debris interface along the
property line as specified in ECF #1, page 141, (413) and 419, page 144, and elsewhere.
23
60. Defendants are also violating the states Basin Plan, do not have a California General Industrial
24
Storm Water Permit, an NPDES permit for their major uncontrolled discharges, are not monitoring their
25
damaging contaminated storm water discharges and cumulatively violate the CWAs prohibition against
26
discharges of contaminated storm waters and non-storm water pollutants from their property into United
27 States waters. In fact, shockingly defendants have never had any permit for discharges, dumping,
28 disposal of hazardous materials, engineering their steep unstable pile of hazardous debris, or in fact to
do anything on their secret, illegal disposal site, all of which criminal activities required at least a dozen
permits, none of which would have been approved. No permits are available for dumping hazardous
materials in a residential area, on your neighbors property or in or on the banks of public watercourses.
61. In 2009, no professional, competent California laboratory measured water tests had yet been
conducted, but today we have about a dozen new professional 2011 tests by SHN and County, which
1
data proves there is now an imminent threat to the environment from such discharges. Defendants
2
own experts fully verified and confirmed the above results with their July 6, 2011 stick test.
3
62. This CWA action is not duplicative of any prior action, and contrary to defendants cited cases
4
in their 7-17 Sanctions Reply all federal statutes dictate that Remington can continue as a citizen to
5 seek EPA or governmental intervention here until there is some sort of consent decree, regulatory
6 enforcement action or any governmental administrative response of any kind, all presently blocked
7 by defendants attorneys through the Humboldt Health Department, which also reaches the Waterboard.
8 63. Finally, plaintiffs 2017 CWA claim has all different testing data: Very different point sources;
9 mostly different and additional pollutants now proven by expert testing from both parties, whereas in
10 2009: 1) There was not yet any environmental expert in the case; 2) Today, there is entirely different
topography on both sites; 3) A new gigantic fence stretching between the properties today and removal
11
of an old nearby fence has drastically altered all drainage, pollution, erosion and other site variables; 4)
12
The contaminated Creek today is also very different from eight years ago, with a much higher, all-year
13
water flow to the protected wetlands below, which increases the imminent threat today to a much
14
greater danger than previously; 5) Finally, in 2017 plaintiff is requesting numerous different damages,
15 based on a totally different remedial cleanup plan, now based upon Aveggios 2011 RAP plan and Dr.
16 McEdwards 2016 investigations, and we are requesting pre-cleanup lost use damages for the first time.
17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION, SDWA, 42 USC 300f- 300j-2661, against all defendants.
18 64. All general and specific allegations above, per 57, below, and in ECF #1 are fully incorporated.
19 65. All of the following allegations are entirely new, have never been asserted anywhere else, are based
20 on the totally new and important 2011 expert testing, which has not yet been admitted into any case.
21 66. Plaintiff has between 80-100 million gallons per year of initially drinkable water lost down
22 Remington Creek annually, because it is presently too polluted to dam, bottle, store or pump for SALE.
67. The serious pollutants and mostly old hydrocarbon derivative contaminants described are all 100%
23
derived from on or within Mathsons mountainside after flowing through his dumped debris on both
24
properties. After removal of the hydrocarbon and other debris on the hillside above, which are now still
25
located on the banks of said Creek, the remaining contaminants can be captured from above at the new
26
retaining wall and perforated drain buried on the uphill side of it. It can then be piped-down the
27 mountain, away from the creek for purification and recycling as irrigation water on Remingtons land.
28 That will result in pure redwood forest rain run-off in upper Remington Creek, which can be captured
easily and sold. Presently, the market value and damage of that lost water is $100-250,000 per annum.
68. Remington has the infrastructure, power, land, pumps, storage and water-trucking expertise for that
commercial development and already uses a small portion of that water today for his own irrigation.
69. Therefore, until remediation, bottling that water is impossible, and Remington is losing an
additional $100,000 per year by being unable to develop his Creek into a potable human water source,
1
due to very high contaminant levels of HCs, E. coli, coliform, asbestos, PCBs and poisonous metals.
2
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION, RCRA, against all contamination and RICO
3
covering-up defendants; 42 USC 6901-6992 (k), et seq, as particularized at ECF #1: 128-131, ID.
4
70. All general and specific allegations above and in ECF #1 are fully incorporated herein, if relevant.
5
71. As alleged above, defendants have violated numerous RCRA permits, standards and regulations by
6
storing, burying and mishandling large quantities of unlawful contaminants, defined as RCRA hazardous
7
wastes, in a residential redwood forest. Defendants must now remove those wastes from plaintiffs land.
8
72. All State and federal case documents for the last ten (10) years, which are hereby incorporated by
9 reference, prove that the primary outlaw defendants, Mathson and RAO, directly aided and abetted by
10 Kishpaugh, Randall, the City, financed and enabled by Gans, Plotz, and Lawrence, and today assisted
11 in the continuation of and overall cover-up of this long-time criminal contaminating operation by the
12 entire named RICO enterprise, ARE and have been a generator, transporter, owner and operator of an
13 illegal permanent storage and disposal facility, by virtue of the acts and operations alleged herein.
14 73. Also, as alleged above and below, for many years, all said above defendants have in the past and
present contributed to or assisted in the covering-up of the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or
15
illicit disposal of solid and/or hazardous wastes, along with other associated merely polluted or
16
contaminated wastes, all in sufficient quantities and concentrations to cumulatively present an actual
17
imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment, according to the written
18
reports of eminent environmental expert chemical engineer and geologist John Aveggio on August 2,
19 2011 and later by Maje Hoyos the principal investigator from the County of Humboldt Environmental
20 Health Division, Hazardous Materials Unit, on or about December, 2011 and into February 2012.
21 74. No actions are presently being undertaken on behalf of the United States, any federal agency, the
22 State of California or any state agencies to commence and diligently prosecute an action to restrain or
23 abate the acts or conditions which may have contributed to or are presently contributing to the
24 continuing contaminated encroachment activities and conditions which are now presenting that alleged
endangerment. Under RCRA, CERCLA & CWA, plaintiff has the right to file as many citizen suits as
25
required until remediation is accomplished. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
26
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, for CERCLA violations, 42 USC 9601-9662
27
and CFR 302.4, etc. against all 1998 PRP defendants and all subsequent RICO cover-up defendants.
28
75. All allegations above, in ECF #1, e.g., 380-386, page 132, ID are fully incorporated herein.
76. This is a citizen suit under CERCLA 310 (a), with proper notice having been given and no statute
of limitations under CERCLA 113 (a) (2) (B) until after remediation has been initiated by some
agency, and at that time a three-year limitation period commences from the date of an administrative
or judicial settlement, 113 (g) (3). No remediation is currently underway or pending, so NO SOL.
1
77.The 1998 contaminating defendants, including Randall and Kishpaugh are PRPs under CERCLA
2
9607 (a), who dumped CERCLA contaminants onto Mathsons land, and storage facility and then
3
intentionally pushed them onto Remingtons land contaminating his soils and water with said above
4
substances, without limitation, named at 59. Defendant John Mathson has admitted all that under oath.
5
78. As described, defendants illegally without permits of any kind transported, dumped, stored, buried,
6
permanently disposed of, and then with consciousness of guilt further intentionally concealed said
7
prohibited CERCLA chemicals and contaminants, along with less toxic wastes, on Remingtons land.
8
79. Plaintiff seeks NCP response costs for investigations, removal, prevention of future releases and
9
migrations, to reduce the risk of public harm to health and the environment, 42 USC 9601 (23-24).
10
80. Additionally, plaintiff seeks damages for response and related administrative and expert costs already
11 incurred, for excavation removal and trucking costs to an appropriate dumpsite, and also costs for the
12 design, construction, installation of equipment, operation and maintenance of a suitable treatment facility
13 near Ridgewood Drive to treat captured contaminated waters as described above, per CERCLA 107 (a)
14 (4) (B); 113 (f) (1) & 113 (f) (3) (B). Equitable allocation of plaintiffs CERCLA claims should be fairly
15 apportioned among the original polluters, the defaulting RAO, and the present RICO cover-up defendants
16 who increasingly intend to crush and ruin Remington before he can determine how to effectuate removal,
or determine which court or administrative agency will force these powerful, influential, corrupt
17
defendants to finally remove their hazardous, contaminating trespassing materials, after 20 years.
18
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION, violation of the VWPA, specifically by defendants Gans,
19
John Mathson, Olson, Skillings and Kishpaugh, and other RICO defendants currently aiding and abetting.
20
81. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1 are fully incorporated herein,
21
especially those specific statutes and intentional criminal acts described from pages 133-139, ID, Vol. I
22
82. Remington does not have enough pages to accurately paraphrase ALL specific 18 USC 1512-15
23
violations alleged herein, but does note that ordinarily a government attorney is ultimately responsible for
24
bringing these actions under 1514, and the court will need to assess whether Remington can initially act
25 as his own attorney general in this specific matter, while simultaneously investigating this himself and
26 actively enlisting governmental criminal authorities to prosecute this and related criminal allegations.
27 The FBI and local DA will be contacted here, with available evidence, plus future discovered evidence.
28 83. Generally, the above-cited defendants, under Gans supreme enterprise leadership, strongly and
improperly influenced, changed or prevented all honest testimony at an official proceeding, causing their
witnesses especially to withhold testimony, alter and destroy evidence, very severely damaging
Remingtons case, and consequently reducing or eliminating completely his 6-7 figure just damages.
84. Plaintiff required 1220-pages to partially particularize the specific federal statutory violations
primarily, and as he has written previously, it is not possible to fully reiterate them with any specificity in
1
96% less pages, so inferentially the court believes a 4% synopsis will detail the frauds and 30 causes.
2
85. Briefly leafing through the Volume I complaints pages 133-139 ( 388-405), plaintiff briefly
3
notes that at 389 the specific violators of 1512 (a) (2) (A),which were fully described in the RICO
4
statement specifically included Olson, Skillings, John Mathson under Gans direction, and perhaps a
5
few others to be discovered; 390 seems pretty specific and clear; 391: applies to state witnesses
6 Costa, Kishpaugh, both Mathsons, Pulley, Filiar, Bianca and Remington, with defendant Gans
7 providing most of the intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasions and misleading conduct. The rest of
8 that section through page 139 seems clear and specific, and therefore will be dealt with as discussed
9 above, and here the full 1220- pages is required to fully put defendants on notice of who is specifically
10 charged with what dishonest or unethical act. It is plaintiffs present view that all of the RICO
11 defendants, as originally designated in the ECF #1 Volume II are implicated in this cause of action in
some degree, but at the penalty stage presumably ranging from culpability of 1-10. For example, we
12
dont know today how intimately involved Linda Lawrence was in Gans day-to-day criminal
13
activities, and whether the fact that she has left her previous position had anything to do with RICO.
14
Likewise, The City clearly had nothing to do initially with the crimes alleged in this cause of action,
15
yet today they are swearing in declarations about facts and circumstances about which they have no
16 knowledge whatsoever, and their attempts to sanction Remington, crush and destroy him financially,
17 and peremptorily end this lawsuit in that manner cannot be entirely overlooked. That is the purpose of
18 the RICO statute in the first place: to implicate all involved with pursuing the Enterprises
19 objectives. Likewise, Nelson and Randalls direct involvement in this cause of action would appear to
20 be minimal, and several of the Mitchell firm RICO members involvement are presently unknown.
21 Therefore, more discovery and liaison with the criminal authorities is needed here, before trial.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION for False Claims Acts violations, 31 USC 3729 (a) (12) (A) &
22
(G)-3733, et seq, against the Mathsons and RAO defendants, pending discovery and RICO cover-ups.
23
86. All allegations above, below & ECF #1: 406-408, page 139, Volume I are fully incorporated herein.
24
87. Plaintiff has evidence, information and belief that RAO and the Mathsons did not pay taxes on
25
their illegal, very profitable short-haul criminal operation in 1998 and thereafter. During discovery,
26
Remington will need to verify that and prove the values of said defendants known enormous real
27 estate developments immediately after 1998, and trace where the funds came to build those multiple
28 projects. Remington is quite confident that these defendant criminals did not pay County use, state and
federal income tax on most criminally derived profits, however they will be given the opportunity to
do so during discovery, before they are implicated by Remington, who is a qui tan civil whistleblower.
88. Ironically, it is the City of Eureka and the County that may have been bilked out of the most money,
however neither seem to be lacking for funds when it comes to hiring outside lawyers, and then proceeding
to do half the work themselves. Because no good deed goes unpunished, Remington will not be
1
expecting any support from the City, despite trying to get a substantial rebate from RAO, for them.
2
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A RULE 65 INJUNCTION,
3
ORDERING the Mathsons to erect a needed dump retaining wall, 18 USC 1367.
4
89. All general and specific allegations above and in ECF #1 are fully incorporated herein, and
5
specifically the entire good, lengthy engineering discussion from pages 140-146, volume I, ID.
6
90. Simply put, defendants built a gigantic mound of unstable hazardous fill materials like a pyramid
7
cut in half vertically, and then placed on Remingtons land. However, like a steep pile of sand, when
8
plaintiff eventually removes that encroachment at defendants expense, a new potentially greater problem
9 will be created which is that it is certain there will be additional major landslides and more erosion of
10 the hazardous materials on Mathsons land today, down onto Remingtons lands. Excavating 10-15 feet
11 deep along the property line now would cause the collapse of between 100-200 yd. of additional
12 unwanted hazardous materials, and a couple of 7.5 earthquakes which occur here every 10-15 years,
13 could cause half of the contaminated mountain to collapse down into Remingtons remediated site before
14 it is properly planted and stabilized. Remington is merely a Sloan National (Ivy League) Scholar engineer
with more than 30-years of directly relevant excavation, engineering and structural experience, so what
15
does he know about landslides on his own terrain? Remington has warned defendants about this issue for
16
at least 3-4 years now, but nevertheless they bullheadedly built a fancy new fence along the property line
17
which will be destabilized when Remington excavates defendants encroaching debris during remediation.
18
91. At 419, pages 143-4, ID, the relief which plaintiff requests of this court is rather clearly spelled-out
19 in seven (7) simple steps. In the event the court decides to exercise that option and execute such an order,
20 the parties could further brief the issue and instead of seven steps there would probably be about 40. We
21 all want to get the job done efficiently, economically, quickly and effectively with full protections for
22 each party in the event of all sorts of possible contingencies, such as collapse of the new, above-
23 described security fence, which was prematurely built against Remingtons engineering advice and before
24 he approved its design. Its a solid and satisfactory replacement for plaintiffs original security fence
which defendants prematurely demolished and removed, however, it does not take a structural engineer to
25
understand that it should have been built on the retaining wall footings as recommended by the only
26
engineer in this case. Why they did it the way they did is obvious, imprudent, but beyond the scope here.
27
STATE PENDANT CLAIMS, federal torts and other fraud and RICO conspiracy related crimes,
28
under supplemental jurisdiction, 28 USC 1367.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION for statutory contribution from all contamination
defendants and RICO defendants cooperating in the contamination cover-up and RICO objectives.
92. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1 are fully incorporated herein.
93. In order to ever market his property and in the interests of the health of the creek, community and
1
environment, plaintiff must remediate his property by removing the hazardous materials and related
2
nonnative debris deposited by defendants. He has already incurred substantial expenses in that regard, and
3
will incur many more in the future. Such expenditures, before damages, will eventually top $280,000.
4
94. Defendants encroachment violates the numerous federal, state and county laws listed above and
5
below, such as under negligence per se, and no portion of such violations and their resulting costs are
6 attributable to plaintiffs actions. Since such violations and costs are solely attributable to defendants,
7 they are now solely liable to plaintiff for the required removal and remediation costs of plaintiffs site.
8 Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below, as to all causes of action.
9 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION, state private & public continuing nuisance and remediation
10 thereof, CACI 2030; CC 3479, against all contamination defendants and RICO enterprise members.
11 95. All general and specific allegations above and in ECF #1 are fully incorporated herein, particularly
12 Volume I: 151-156, ID, e.g: the requirement of a Renz ruling, types of poison movements in water, the
13 elements of nuisance, the early history of this dispute, the leaning trees issue, and remediations to date.
14 96. Defendants conduct described above was without consent, and the resulting major contamination of
plaintiffs property substantially interferes with and continues to interfere with plaintiffs use, enjoyment,
15
right to private occupancy of his property, LEL, and is harmful to health and indecent to the senses (see
16
462-468, ID), in that: Defendants encroaching hazardous and related non-native substances, already
17
existing today on plaintiffs land, have contaminated, and continue to worsen and further contaminate
18
plaintiffs soils, surface and groundwater situated at, and on plaintiffs presently encroached property, and
19 said contamination also impacts plaintiffs steep land and Creek below, due largely to gravity forces.
20 97. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants conduct, as explained, affected and continues to affect the
21 community at large, upwind and down-stream, in that defendant has created a present danger to the public
22 in the form of multiple hazardous substance contaminations to the environment, directly adjacent to and
23 above a major watercourse feeding Humboldt Bay and its adjacent protected wetlands. Plaintiff has been
24 particularly seriously affected and impacted by this nuisance created by defendants, and because of that
specific injury to plaintiffs health, property and quality of life, he has the legal standing to bring THIS
25
citizens action against defendant for public nuisance, see also ECF #1: 156-163, 456-481, ID.
26
98. Plaintiff has been damaged by the private and public nuisance created by defendants alleged above,
27
which damages will continue until it is removed. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment set forth below.
28
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONTINUING TRESPASS, CACI 2000,
Against all contamination and RICO cover-up defendants, as specifically qualified in 1220-page ECF #1.
99. All general and specific allegations above and in ECF #1 are fully incorporated herein, especially the
detailed, comprehensive analysis at pages 163-170, 482-501 with elements, damages and abatement.
100. Defendants discharged, dumped and buried the above hazardous and contaminated materials and
1
named adverse substances (e.g. 484, page 164, ID), including without limitation: poisonous gas station
2
remediation products, leaking USTs, rusty underground piping, related accessories, etc., onto and into
3
plaintiffs native soils, impacting his soils and all levels of water all the way down to Ridgewood Drive.
4
101. Plaintiff alleges that defendants cumulative above conduct of dumping hazardous and related
5 substances and debris directly onto his land and its resulting migrations and varying movements in soil,
6 groundwater and surface water, constitute wrongful acts of continuing trespass on plaintiffs property, has
7 interfered with plaintiffs right to use and occupy his own property, and continues to do so, indefinitely.
8 102. Defendants wrongful acts of continuing trespass have damaged Remington and his business to a not
9 fully understood total extent, however the first reasonable step here now is to remove all encroaching
10 contaminated debris which experts, from both sides have unanimously agreed can be done with
reasonable means at a reasonable cost, as prescribed under Mangini I, II; Starrh and Starrh, etc.
11
103. The acts of defendants were willful, wanton, without consent or any plaintiffs knowledge,
12
and were in conscious disregard for plaintiffs rights, those of the community, the natural environment
13
and the safety of others, and therefore justify an award of exemplary and/or punitive damages according
14
to proof, and/or treble RICO damages and/or trespass damages for ruining agricultural land under
15 cultivation. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
16
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, Equitable Indemnity, against all defendants
17 but not equally, and according to the reasonable determination of culpability at the time of trial.
18 104. All general and specific allegations above and in ECF #1, ID are fully incorporated herein.
19 105. Plaintiff has already paid substantial remediation, inventory removal and related costs caused by
20 defendants contamination and anticipates many more similar major expenditures in the near future.
21 106. Plaintiff has also been informed by two different independent County investigators that even in
22 2008-11, he will be held liable for additional damages, various severe fines and all costs of cleanup by
the county, State Waterboard or under federal law at some point, no matter who buried the toxic waste.
23
Melissa Martel appears to be controlling this present intransigency and has personally slow-walked the
24
environmental investigations of both relevant sites here for approximately eight (8) years. However, the
25
next Health Department Director or Northern Regional Water Board Chairman may not be influenced by
26
the Mitchell firm or whatever present improper considerations are clearly now involved here, and
27 therefore at any time some administrative regulator is expected to eventually initiate enforcement and
28 cleanup actions against plaintiff, if he has not proven, or cannot prove, that defendants are the responsible
parties (PRPs) for all contamination of the sites. Somebody will eventually have to clean-up these sites
and justice indicates it should be the polluters themselves, and not innocent neighborly victims.
107. Plaintiffs present liability is predicated entirely upon defendants, and all of their, reckless,
intentional, negligent and/or careless and criminal disposal and concealment acts, described above.
108. Plaintiff should therefore be held harmless and indemnified by defendants for all related past, present
1
and future costs (see Volume I: 265-78, ID), including: analysis, monitoring, excavations, trucking costs,
2
final clean-ups, all administrative liaisons with the relevant authorities now and after a cleanup, ETC.
3
109. Therefore, plaintiff seeks indemnification in whole or in part based generally upon common-law
4
principles of equitable and partial indemnity as well as contribution pursuant to principles of comparative
5
negligence, comparative fault and apportionment of liability and damages and the tort of another
6 doctrine. Plaintiffs also base their rights to indemnification upon the California Water Code 13300,et
7 seq, Health & Safety Code 25363, the other relevant statues listed above and at Negligence Per Se
8 below, plus any other applicable statutory remedies. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment below.
9 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT For Ultra-Hazardous Activity,
10 against all contamination defendants and against the RICO defendants, according to the extent of their
11 intentional aiding and abetting, cover-up activity, and criminal acts, according to proofs at trial.
12 110. All general, specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1, are fully incorporated herein.
13 111. The contamination defendants caused various ultra-hazardous activities to exist on or above
plaintiffs land by the negligent, reckless conduct of: Using dangerous huge excavation equipment on
14
edge of the mountaintop, without proper controls or the ability or motivation to drag-back heavy objects
15
which rolled hundreds of feet down the mountain; Pushing rollable 10-20,000 pound concrete blocks
16
to the edge of the mountain top and then allowing them to or deliberately pushing them off the cliff
17
to roll down onto plaintiffs land, killing anything in their way; Storing, disposing of, discharging,
18 pushing, rolling and otherwise burying and concealing hazardous wastes, ultra-hazardous asbestos
19 and 60% Chrysotile, leaking USTs and related flammable underground gas station oil and gasoline
20 saturated soils, accessories, dangerous pulmonary dusts, infectious bacteria, etc., on plaintiffs land, in
21 his soils and waters. Those acts were ultra-hazardous and threaten the health of all living things there.
22 112. Defendants exercised no reasonable care with their ultra-hazardous activity, and now its too late
23 as significant damages have now been done, which continue, by defendants ultra-hazardous activity.
113. As a result of the above ultra-hazardous activities, plaintiff was damaged as alleged, and according to
24
proofs at trial. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
25
UNJUST ENRICHMENT v. RESTITUTION, (not a cause of action, but a sentencing
26
principle), primarily against the Mathsons, RAO defendants, Lawrence and Gans, until discovered
27
proofs extend to the others, per FN #7. This calculation is too complex, convoluted and subjective a
28
formula to be done, or explained in detail here,7 see Volume I: 61-64; 170-175, ID for explanations.
7
. For example, until about two years of discovery in DR 140426 and/or in this case, as Restitution is
applicable in either case, but not both, it is premature to accurately determine either side of the restitution
equation. At some point, as above, the jury will need to add-up all Remingtons reasonable compensatory,
punitive and RICO damages and then compare them to the summation of all defendants adjudged to be
unjust profits, which could be total of 150 different numbers among all of the defendants. The RAO and
114. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1 are fully incorporated herein.
1
115. Restitution is not a cause of action but is an important equity principle to apply to this case after
2
either a trial here or in presently stayed state case DR 140426, where the issue has also been raised, but it
3
cannot be recovered in both cases obviously. This calculation cannot be made until at least two years of
4
intrusive, vehemently contested financial discoveries, and after a complex, adversarial evidentiary trial.
5
116. Remingtons 1220 page ECF #1, filed in this case discusses this restitution calculation in some
6 detail at Volume I: 61-64; 171-175 ( 502-522); and Volume IV: 667-670. The essence of the principle
7 is that detailed accountings must be made of all of defendants unjust profits as governed by actual
8 violations of laws as determined by a jury. Those subtotals are than added-up, to calculate the total
9 unjust profit figure. Simultaneously, after a trial, all jury-granted compensatory damages, punitive and
10 RICO damages are also added-up into one total. The two totals are then compared and Remington is
11 entitled to the higher of the two. For example, if Unjust Profits total $1 million, but the jury finds that
Remingtons total damages equals only $850,000 (per Volume IV: 667), then using this Restitution
12
principle, Remington is entitled to all unjust profits, or $1 million because it is greater than $850,000.
13
Wherefore, plaintiff prays for use of the restitution principal before any final recovery is granted.
14
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE PER SE, against all contamination
15
and RICO cover-up defendants, to the varying degrees of culpability discussed in ECF #1, Vol. II & IV.
16
117. All general and specific allegations above, below and in all ECF #1, are fully incorporated herein.
17
118. Plaintiff alleges that defendants and all of them, failed to comply with, and continue to fail to
18
comply with all applicable local ordinances, state and federal laws as fully set forth in the prior state
19
complaints and the original 1220-page pleading in this case. Those failures are a continuing breach of
20
defendants duties to abide by the law, and cumulatively constitutes negligence per se. Obviously each
21 defendant violated different laws and to different degrees, which is far-beyond the scope of a concise
22 mere 50-page notice pleading with hundreds of specific allegations and 16 different defendants
23 each involved with different scores of those violations, but in individual graduations of culpability.
24 119. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conduct VIOLATED, without limitation: the California Penal
25 Mathson component to the unjust enrichment side of the equation would be the easiest components to
26 determine, whereas how much illicit profit in salary Gans, Lawrence, Plotz, etc. made would have to be
estimated. More difficult would be to determine how much Unjust Profit the city made in essentially
27 selling their lethal asbestos pipes and Chrysotile to RAO at presumably below market prices. If the next
lowest legitimate bid was $10,000 below RAOs it could be argued that the City was unjustly benefited
28
by that $10,000. The Nelson calculation is also difficult in that they unjustly profited from the use of the
20-$30,000 which Remington spent training, paying and otherwise working with John Aveggio, and then
removing him before our sole objective and trial was completed. A major refund and damages is still
indicated. It is similar to training US world-class gymnasts for two years for $150,000 each and then
arbitrarily preventing them from going to the Olympics for unknown, undisclosed reasons. Kishpaugh
and Randall each were unjustly enriched in subjective and exact amounts to be determined, by using
Remingtons property for personal garbage disposal instead of putting out a can every week for example.
Code 594 PC, former 374; California Health & Safety Codes 25,100, et seq (California
1
Hazardous Waste Control Act), 25,189, 25,189.2 (b), 25299, former 4000, 4457, 4451, and
2
4452; California Water Code 13300-350 and 13387 (a) (1-7); California Civil Code 3479, et
3
seq, 1714, 669, 13350, 1602, 5411, 2510, etc; ALL of the federal statutory violations
4
cited above; The California Hazardous Substance Account Act (H & S Code 25,300 et seq.);
5 California Fish and Game Codes 5650, 5650.1, 5652, 1602, etc.; California Government Code
6 8670.675; California Uniform Building Code Title III, 3307.1 and all of the 15 major dangerous and
7 damaging violations cited at pages 179-180; 175-179, Volume I, ECF #1, ID, all incorporated herein
8 by reference to provide specific details of each statutory violation. Each contamination defendant is
9 guilty of different specific statutory violations and degrees, which subtleties of culpability, and RICO
10 cover-up of all law violations are subjective, complex and required 1220-pages of detail, just to start.
120. Plaintiff is in the class of persons intended to be protected by said statutes, as are all members of
11
the affected public, which Remington is also attempting to protect and weakly advocate on behalf of.
12
121. Plaintiff as well as the locally affected public have been damaged by each individual violation of all
13
of said above ordinances and statutes. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
14
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, FOR FRAUDULENT INTENTIONAL
15 MISREPRESENTATIONS, CACI 1900, et seq, which Remington, and others noted, reasonably relied-on
16 to our harm and detriment, against all defendants. Plaintiff, until recently, relied upon defendants to
17 obey all statutes, court orders, good-faith, ethical principles, laws of evidence and not to commit perjury.
18 122. All above allegations, in ECF #1, Vol I: 181-189 ( 546- 578), ID are fully incorporated herein.
19 123. Mr. Gans, the Mathsons, all the other contamination and RICO defendants and even Skillings of
20 RAO made various knowingly false important and material representations to Remington and the courts,
21 including in their pleadings and motion documents, with the intent to deceive, many of which he and
22 multiple courts reasonably and justifiably relied on for 9 years, and that thereafter their false
23 misrepresentations substantially harmed him. In each case, the defendants knew their representations
were partially or completely false when made, were material, and they intended that Remington, the
24
courts and/or a jury in each case would rely on those false facts, which they all did in the various
25
examples cited below and herein, harming Remington in the numerous different ways cited. Remingtons
26
misreliances on defendants misrepresentations were a substantial factor in causing his harm. Dozens of
27
specific harms were specified in particular detail in the 1220-page initial pleading, and briefly outlined
28 here, and include without limitation: 1) Plaintiff lost the 2016 SOL trial, due to Gans numerous CACI
1900 false misrepresentations to plaintiff and the court, leading to erroneous favorable rulings from said
court, about Skillings and all of Gans testifying trial witnesses, whose sworn special interrogatories and
deposition scripts from the previous 10-years were ignored and totally rewritten a week before trial in late
July 2016, with damages as expressed below; 2) Plaintiff altered and mismanaged his environmental
experts soil and water testing plans as a result of Blue Rocks intentionally fraudulent, incompetent out-
1
of-time testing; 3) Plaintiffs time expenditures, planning, testing costs and overall expenses were greatly
2
increased, in all cases; 4) The Gans led RICO defendants have used asbestos fraudulently, deceptively
3
and successfully in a variety of ways, in the original federal case, by using an improperly disclosed expert
4
Mr. Schwartz, and then fraudulent declarations by Gwinn and Ferriman regarding the quantity and
5 toxicity of the asbestos pipes which they personally viewed and photographed on July 6, 2011, with
6 plaintiff walking by their sides for two hours. They provided Remington with their photographs, and then
7 lied and totally misrepresented their whole asbestos investigation in bad faith thereafter, causing
8 plaintive anxiety, extra costs and administrative steps with his own experts, compounding his
9 contamination trial preparations; 5) Most damagingly, they misled the court whereby obtaining numerous
10 erroneous favorable rulings, i.e. MIL #20, in 7-16, ETC; 6) Defendants Gans-led RICO frauds over the
twin 6 inch pipes have cost Remington at least two solid man months, confused the state and federal
11
courts, with numerous damages to plaintiff and costs over that period. Plaintiff and Both of his SHN
12
experts John Aveggio and Michael Foget were originally duped for at least two years by defendants
13
experts 2010-11 sworn statements that the pipes were perforated, much shorter than they actually were,
14
and that they drained the fill and were perfect tests cases for proving Mathsons fill was benign,
15 which was a massive material fraud. We, and the state and district court both reasonably relied on that
16 expert testimony for several years, but we eventually realized from our own investigations that the pipes
17 were solid, they did not drain any fill whatsoever, and they merely transported pure spring and County
18 irrigation water from Mathsons backyard down the mountain, and had no more relationship to
19 defendants gargantuan contaminated Class One landfill polluted water runoff, than capturing water from
20 Mathsons household sink did; 7) Defendants expert consultants and the leaders of their RICO enterprise
cover-up of all environmental crimes here, misrepresented early in the lawsuit (2010) before we had
21
done our own substantial or any expert testing, that all of defendants fill was just pristine, benign
22
uncontaminated forest dirt that did not have any of the toxic waste, hydrocarbons, lead, coliform and
23
asbestos, etc that are lying noses, eyes and scientific tests revealed after each 2009-12 investigation. We
24
reasonably relied on the integrity of their environmental consultants initially, and even on Mr. Gans
25 veracity, for MUCH longer than we should have; 8) A further example would be that from 2008-11, Mr.
26 Gans promised that he was going to do his own borings and testing all over plaintiffs property during his
27 several environmental investigations, but each time they did nothing. Reasonably relying on an officer of
28 the courts deceitful promises and specific material representations, Remington and his experts decided in
early 2011 not to do $10,000 of water tests for example, when defendants said THEY were going to do
them, SO there was no reason for us to duplicate them and waste that kind of (borrowed) money. Now
we see that was a deceitful intentional con-job and a fraudulent misrepresentation by Mr. Gans, and
the above were some of the RICO enterprises early fraudulent acts. Judge Reinholtsen agreed with
plaintiff that Mr. Gans committed minor fraud in this case, by misrepresenting he planned to test
1
Plaintiffs land, and thereafter made his one and only extension of discovery deadlines. See pages 685-
2
722, ECF #1, Volume IV, for 54 about these frauds and crimes, including over 40 DIFFERENT ones.
3
SEE also eight (8) solid pages of additional specific detail regarding these and other allegations at
4
546- 578, pages 181-189, Volume I, ID, and Volume IV. Deception, fraudulent misrepresentations,
5 and deceit upon which an honest plaintiff, his experts and judges reasonably relied on, was Mr. Gans
6 main modus operandi even before Gans RICO documents ALL became at least partially fraudulent.
7 124. There are more than 100-pages of particularized fraudulent allegations, pertaining to written or
8 oral contracts, promises, or deceit, against most of the defendants in this case, and can be briefly
9 generalized here as: Defendants, especially Mathson and Mr. Gans made numerous specific factual
10 representations to Remington and his experts, which were in fact false. Defendants knew they were
false when made and were made with the intent to defraud or deceive plaintiff with the intent to
11
induce him to act in a manner contrary to his interests, usually. At the time they were made Remington
12
and his experts accepted the veracity of the statements or test results, etc, as stated and believed them
13
to be true. In reliance on those representations, plaintiff was induced to make numerous crucial
14
litigation decisions, especially regarding whether or not to test different substances at different
15 locations whether to rely on defendants testing or whether they would honor their various settlement
16 agreements resulting in no testing costs to be needed at all. There are dozens of related similar
17 incidents, hard to generalize about. However, had plaintiff known the actual facts, he would not have
18 taken many of the actions he took or would have done additional testing on both properties and
19 especially he would have investigated Mathsons land, twin pipes and both ends of said pipes in order
20 to avoid the 3-4 months of solid material controversies regarding same. As a result of the relationships,
especially among the attorneys, defendants had an obligation to deal honestly and fairly with plaintiff,
21
regarding, for example, the misrepresentations made to Remingtons Attorney Harvey Roberts with
22
respect to Special Interrogatory Number TWO and in the deposition of John Mathson regarding their
23
various witnesses intended trial testimony. As a proximate result of the numerous above
24
misrepresentations, Remington was damaged, lost the SOL case, had to expend huge sums of money
25 and time in continuing the litigation several more years, to repair the damages from the frauds.
26 125.The aforementioned conduct of the defendants were intentional misrepresentations, deceit or
27 concealments of a material fact known only to the defendants with the intention on the part of the
28 defendants of thereby depriving plaintiff of his property and legal rights and otherwise causing injury;
it was also despicable conduct that subjected plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardships, and was in
conscious, wanton disregard of plaintiffs rights, sufficient to justify punitive damages, plus the
numerous other types of damages alleged, calculated exactly during trial, which plaintiff requests now.
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONCEALMENT (CACI 1901), against
defendants John Mathson, Gans, Kishpaugh, Randall and Nelson only, each in multiple and entirely
1
different ways. ALL had ethical duties to be truthful in their dealings with plaintiff, if they spoke at all.
2
126. All general and specific allegations above and in ECF #1, ID, ALL 1220-pages, are fully
3
incorporated herein, and specifically those at Volume I: Pages 189-202 (IMPORTANT!); Volume 4
4
pages 10-94 and 672-685 (Gans); Volumes I, II and IV pertaining to each specified defendant above.
5
127.Three of the above defendants initially were ostensibly excellent, congenial, trusted neighbors and
6
Nelson and SHN were supremely trusted plaintiff-environmental experts with a clear confidential
7
relationship, and Mr. Gans had numerous ethical obligations to be truthful with Remington and his
8 attorney if he decided to speak about a topic, and in fact he did speak on every and all topics discussed
9 below, but not truthfully. All of the above had different exclusive knowledge of material facts which
10 were unknown and/or reasonably unknowable to Remington. It is black letter law that parties, witnesses
11 and opposing attorneys if they choose to speak on the topic at all, must state the truth, the whole
12 truth and nothing but the truth especially in sworn declarations, trial testimony and written
13 interrogatories, and all of the above five have failed those standards here. All of the above have to date
committed multiple perjuries, have been evasive in various declarations and other documents, have
14
incompletely answered interrogatories, deposition questions or trial cross-examination questions, have
15
made numerous blatant misrepresentations or incomplete disclosures of facts, and in most of the cases,
16
all have intentionally, overtly and unlawfully suppressed and mischaracterized evidence. As will be
17
briefly generalized below, plaintiff also had a very special (multiple) contractual and confidential-type
18 (or like) relationship with John Mathson much too complex to fully specify here, but it has been
19 sworn to in plaintiffs depositions and several thousand pages of declarations. The relationship with
20 Randall was also close and contractual for a brief period around the early 1990s, whereas the friendly
21 relationship with BOTH Kishpaughs was somewhat more ambiguous and uncertain as to the
22 applicability of all elements of a formal concealment cause of action, and specifically whether a legally
23 sustainable confidential or suitable alternative relationship existed between plaintiff and Kishpaugh.
128. Over 30 years, Plaintiff had numerous close security and real estate related oral, hand-shake,
24
offer-acceptance, written and course of conduct contracts and agreements; property sharing, exchanges
25
and trades; mutual understandings about fences, borders and personal property; security alliances
26
against bears, dumpers, thieves and other intruders; and, similar trusted, actual confidential
27
relationships with John Mathson for many years. It was John, and only he who knew where the
28 northeast corner of plaintiffs property was and that has been the sole basis of plaintiffs knowledge
regarding the north side of this property. All subsequent North and East fences (at least 600 lineal feet
of them), boundaries and eventual litigation issues were based solely on John Mathsons word and
honest representations, which plaintiff totally reasonably relied upon for 26 years. Plaintiff implicitly
trusted John Mathsons every word about everything for 26 years, and specifically where BOTH of
our properties began and ended, because the NE boundary corner marker was buried and concealed,
1
and no other surveys had been done of any property lines, until the litigation. In fact, John Mathsons
2
word regarding real estate boundaries, defects, nuisances and problems in the area, etc. was just as
3
good, or better to plaintiff as the seller of Remingtons property, Bailey Cookseys, was. Over many
4
years, plaintiff and Mathson cooperated fully, trusted each other implicitly (certainly as well as any
5 family relative) in many areas of mutual interest, such as: watching each others properties (when
6 plaintiff twice went to Europe, and in all A.M. hours, for example), and specifically regarding the
7 rampant criminal dumping in Remingtons upper ravine (mostly by Randall and Kishpaugh we now
8 know), because the Mathsons reported them directly to Remington back when we were friends.
9 The Mathsons greatly assisted with enforcing and restricting said dumping for years; helped to reduce
10 numerous other burl theft, human criminal and animal security issues; and the Mathsons frequently
requested plaintiffs assistance with their numerous escaped, lost and/or injured dogs, birds, cats, etc,
11
problems. The Mathsons were also in a unique and superior position to understand and disclose the
12
extreme health hazards from their rampant blowing asbestos, and bacterially infested unpermitted,
13
(illegal) backyard septic system, which plaintiff eventually FULLY learned about from his hospital
14
near-deathbed. Plaintiff also had similar, but less complex, or well-developed, confidential, oral and
15 written contractual, business or long-time trusting relationships with both Randall and the Kishpaughs.
16 129. In all of the above five (5) cases, defendants failed to disclose important material facts, while
17 disclosing some of the facts sufficient to deceive and/or materially misrepresent the truth to plaintiff. In
18 all of numerous cases they lied, deceived or otherwise failed to disclose one or more important facts
19 known only to them, which plaintiff had no reasonable means of discovering independently. In several
20 cases, Remington was intentionally blocked from reasonable discovery by different means, which
often involved burying or concealing the truth with organic matter, including Gans and Mathsons
21
burial of the twin 6-inch pipes in June, 2012, and all asbestos pipes in 2016, to avoid photography in
22
each case. In each of more than a dozen specific cases, plaintiff did not know the material concealed
23
fact, which was because defendants intentionally deceived plaintiff by concealing a fact, and succeeded
24
in doing so. In all or most examples, too numerous to specify in these few pages, Remington
25 reasonably relied on the defendants deceptions, causing him various damages, as a proximate result.
26 130. Specific concealed facts by the above five defendants which meet all the criteria of the above
27 concealment elements, include without limitation: 1) The major sorting, burial and concealment
28 of hazardous materials by all contamination defendants, especially John Mathson and RAO in and after
1998 should have been revealed to plaintiff in our numerous related 2007 interactions on the sites; and
Randall and Kishpaugh also each concealed crucial facts, on different issues, in different years and
different specific incidents, described in the 1220-page pleading under those defendants; 2) Concealing
all of the true 1998 facts from the 2016 SOL jury and lying about them under the conspiratorial
leadership of Mr. Gans, also involved all of the above defendants except for Nelson, only because the
1
latter did not attend; 3) The conspiratorial concealing of the toxicity of all dump materials by the above
2
dumpers (again excluding Nelson), which included concealing the hazardous saturated HC content and
3
underground accessories, 15-20,000 pounds of 20% asbestos and 60% asbestos chrysotile, the lethal
4
bacteria, dusts and vapors, etc for as long as they could get away with it; 4) the concealment of their
5 unsuspected, surprising envy and hate for Remington and their various plots against him, were well
6 (and totally) concealed for many years and until the inception of these lawsuits; 5) The rampant,
7 criminal concealment of all visual case evidence from all relevant sites by removing what is on the
8 surface, altering and reducing it in size or visual and photographic obtrusiveness, and covering it with
9 planted ground covers, weeds and hand-dispersed buckets of redwood needles, etc; 6) All of the above
10 have applied continuous concealed pressure on plaintiff from more than 140 vandalisms for years in
order to extort plaintiff, drain his finances and break his resolve; 7) Gans and all of the other above
11
named defendants, except Nelson, also have materially and intentionally misrepresented the overall
12
volume of their various dumped debris, in three different areas, and then Mr. Gans enlisted surveyor
13
Pulleys support in preparing a falsified diagram of all three dimensions of the volume of the fill and
14
fraudulently induced Mr. Pulley to sign-off on those experts scientific frauds, and then bribed or
15 mesmerized their percipient witnesses to swear that it was all true, when in fact none of it was; 8)
16 Mr. Gans and Mathson intentionally reburied and concealed the twin 6-inch pipes in June 2012
17 to avoid photography and exposure of their material perjury in state and federal court. On many
18 of the above issues, both Gans and John Mathson had superior knowledge, especially of all crucial real
19 estate property lines, survey corner markers and Twin 6 pipe issues. Until 2007 in fact, John Mathson
20 was an actual fiduciary, zealously protecting plaintiffs interests as cited; 9) Mr. Gans and Mathson
materially, intentionally and successfully confused and concealed the difference between the 2003
21
Agreed Fence Agreement and the 2007 handshake agreement in Judge Reinholtsens court, costing
22
plaintiff $2000 in sanctions, and damages which are expected to be eventually recovered on an appeal.
23
131. Mr. Nelson is also responsible under this cause of action for entirely different reasons, quite
24
thoroughly discussed at ECF #1, Volume IV:187-205, especially. Space here does not permit any more
25 detail than that, however plaintiff did have a long-term, very clear contract with SHN, an obvious
26 confidential relationship with the totally trusted John Aveggio, who controlled our case for about two
27 years, and then with his good friend and ample replacement Mike Foget, which Nelson summarily
28 removed by contract breach, while fraudulently concealing all reasons from plaintiff. That breach very
gravely prejudiced and damaged plaintiff, only weeks before a scheduled trial date, obviously based
on extreme pressure from Gans enterprise, when Mr. Foget was already totally ready to testify.
132. In all of the 20 or more different instances alluded to above, the defendants had an obligation to
speak the truth if they spoke at all, and in each case they did not speak the truth, either misrepresenting,
lying or telling only some insignificant fraction of the truth with the successful intent to deceive,
1
mislead and distract Remington. In every case cited above, defendants deceptions and deceit worked,
2
damaging Remington and his expert investigations, motion drafting, trial preparations and actual trial.
3
133. Defendants made intentionally false misrepresentations above, concealing material facts known
4
only to them with the intention of depriving Remington of property, legal rights, and causing other
5 injury. Defendants intentional despicable conduct subjected Remington to cruel, unjust hardships, costs,
6 harmful pathogens, etc., in conscious disregard for plaintiffs rights, justifying exemplary damages.
7 134. Each named defendant above, made intentionally, knowingly false representations to plaintiff
8 intending to induce him to act deleteriously to his own interests, and succeeded in each instance.
9 Remington believed their representations were true, and/or likely to have future support of some kind, had
10 no economically reasonable, independent means of determining the truth in most cases, and had he known
the truth (s), he would have acted differently, and especially as regards to Mathson, Nelson and Gans.
11
135. As a result of the above, plaintiff was damaged by being deprived of property, honest trial by jury,
12
various legal rights, his wealth and health, and was otherwise injured according to proofs involved in
13
each of the above generalized 30 or more incidents. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment below.
14
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO OTHERS, CACI
15
1906, primarily against Mr. Gans, Nelson, Plotz, Brisso and both Mathsons, and secondarily against
16
all RICO and contamination defendants, according to further discovered dynamics and proofs.
17 136. All general and specific allegations above and in ECF #1, ID, ALL 1220-pages, are fully
18 incorporated herein, and specifically those at Volume I: Pages 203-205, 596 B-F; Volume 4 pages 10-
19 94 and 672-685 (Gans);176-182 (Brisso); 187-205 (Nelson); 108-136 (Mathson); 171-176 (Plotz); 293-
20 294 (miscellaneous testing technicians); 215-221, (Ferriman and Gwinn); plus all of Volumes I, II and
21 IV pertaining to each defendant, and potential DOES like Watt (ID: 297); Martel, Esko, ID:235-245.
137. The six above defendants, are responsible for a variety of deceitful misrepresentations about
22
Remington, his contaminated property, testing results and litigation efforts prior to 2016 using SHN and
23
John Aveggio, which misrepresentations were made through a fairly complex network of lower-level
24
Eureka boring and testing personnel at Blue Rock Environmental which was communicated directly to
25
personnel at the County, SHN and LACO Engineering among others within the Eureka environmental
26
community. These false, slanderous representations, rumors and mischaracterizations, amounted to a
27 statement that Remington and SHN contaminated his own property themselves! That FRAUD
28 presumably originated from Mr. Gans and his testers, who were too afraid to do a single test on
plaintiffs property themselves, because it was very obviously contaminated. The absurd, libelous
ramifications and implications of that RICO charge are that Remington and his colluding, criminal
experts, (with absolutely impeccable integrity in reality), wanted to do something nasty to the nice
Mathsons so plaintiff created the fantasy that there were 2 million pounds of Mathsons contaminated
debris on Remingtons land and SHN spiked the ground themselves, with 50-100 year-old diesel
1
gasoline and degraded motor oil components, or something along those absurd lines! How Remington
2
and SHN were able to obtain and then levitate 75 or more large dump truck loads of gigantic concrete
3
blocks, lethal asbestos pipes and gas station remediated spoils and related hazardous wastes down the
4
mountain from Remingtons yard, across the ravine, under the stream and halfway back up another
5 mountain is significantly skipped in their nonsensical, fraudulent narrative. Remington had no means
6 or motive to obtain and hide all that hazardous debris 500-feet away on another mountain, and Mathson
7 has admitted to doing it anyway! Gans false narrative, appears written by a Trump, and is ridiculous!
8 138. Mr. Gans was successful in severely prejudicing the County, LACO and then Mr. Nelson of SHN
9 against Remington and this remediation project, ultimately very severely damaging Remington when
10 Nelson summarily, without warning or provocation removed his chief environmental engineer Michael
Foget from plaintiffs project and expert witness trial team. Foget had already been designated
11
over very vehement Gans opposition, accepted by a complex court ORDER, and also used in the
12
case as Aveggios replacement for at least two years. He had visited Remingtons land and sites for
13
longer than defendants experts, very fully studied both sites, consulted with Remington about all
14
aspects of the litigation extensively, had been fully prepared by Aveggios depositions as a trial
15 witness, and Remington had already paid him over $600, and invested at least $15,000 of his own time
16 on expert augmentation motions, related trial and testing planning, condensing Aveggios work, etc.
17 138A. The resulting damage to Remington, the legacy of John Aveggio, and both of our impeccable
18 business reputations and cumulative 75-years or so of unblemished business activities was quite drastic
19 as Mr. Gans ridiculed and defamed Remingtons environmental project. Gans falsely spread the fear in
20 the Eureka area that a new expert would never get paid, causing Remington to have to look hundreds
of miles away, with higher associated costs. Eventually plaintiff located his eminent Berkeley PhD
21
environmental expert, Dr. McEdwards with excellent credentials and capabilities, although not up to
22
the overall world-class litigatory standard of John Aveggio. Plaintiffs losses on SHN so far are at least
23
$40,000, according to proofs at trial, and Gans RICO enterprise is responsible for treble damages.
24
139. Remington ultimately learned about the above misrepresentations and convoluted chain of frauds,
25 defamatory rumor and prejudicial mischaracterizations, from his expert witness Maje Hoyos, from
26 Humboldt County Environmental Health Department, Hazardous Materials Unit, and has been
27 damaged by it. Mr. Gans, Ferriman, and later Nelson, etc, were ultimately trying to fulfill their RICO
28 objectives of damaging or destroying Remington as fast as possible, and eliminating his primary
evidentiary environmental expert was a perfect way to KILL a case, as was very effectively
demonstrated by the Rule 37 (b) sanction in the 2009 federal SJ. Circumstances this time and today are
very different from 2009 and we have important backup experts and other evidence this time, plus two
different judges who have not yet been prejudiced by Mr. Gans and his desperately ruthless Enterprise.
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION, CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND COLLUSION,
1
CACI 3600, against all defendants.
2
140. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1,Volume I: Pages 205-224, ID
3
are incorporated herein, and specifically those particularizing defendants numerous sub-conspiracies.
4
141. Plaintiff asserts that defendants committed and are presently engaged in an ongoing collusive
5 civil conspiracy, which links impose liability on all persons who knowingly agreed to continue to
6 commit wrongs against plaintiff, effectively adopting the torts of other more active co-conspirators.
7 142. Mr. Gans is now leading 15-20 important sub-conspiracies here in order to support his overall
8 master fraudulent conspiracy which was defined at length (ECF #1, Volume IV) as the RICO
9 enterprises objectives (e.g., ID, pages 311-313 and 489-513) of covering up the initial environmental
10 crimes completely, essentially blaming Remington for everything and ultimately forcing him to
surrender, keep all defendants contamination, sell his property at more than a $1 million loss and
11
except total ignominy, ostracization and financial ruin. Plaintiff has been greatly damaged by both the
12
wrongful RICO objectives and also by all of the sub-conspiracies summarized in the next section.
13
143. Some of the major presently ongoing sub-conspiracies now ongoing in support of the overall
14
primary civil conspiracy (and/or RICO objectives) against Remington and the Burl Tree are, without
15 limitation: 1) Defendants initial intentional 1998-2001+ hauling, disposal, burial and establishment of
16 an illegal Class One residential hazardous waste dump in a redwood forest, feloniously using gas station
17 remediated spoils, gigantic remnants of a concrete Highway 101 Bridge demolished in an earthquake,
18 asbestos and other hazardous wastes; 2) Locating a substantial portion of said dump on plaintiffs land,
19 on the banks of a state watercourse; 3) The independent conspiratorial crime of establishing said illegal
20 waste dump without any permits of any kind, where numerous engineering and grading permits and
inspections were needed to build anything on the side of a 60 mountaintop; 4) Defendants deliberately
21
incompetent testing on the wrong property, out-of-holding time with subsequent fraudulent and
22
intentional gross understatements of and misrepresentations of all their scientific and mathematically
23
measured facts on these sites, including all crucial variables such as toxicity, overall volume, depth,
24
supposed remoteness and inaccessibility of the dumpsite, and related intentionally false, fraudulent
25 conspiratorial statements regarding the lack of any damages to Remingtons land, business, estate and
26 major Creek only 10-feet below said dumps location today, which dump originally substantially
27 overflowed into the creek, and had eight years to be eroded away before Remington ever discovered it;
28 5) Defendants then blamed Remington for causing and placing all contamination on both properties,
and easily got all their corrupted experts and initial conspiratorial defendants to swear to that, just as
they were able to instantly and easily get all NEW RICO attorneys here to join their RICO enterprise,
and then falsely swear to their blatantly corrupted and conspiratorial RICO interpretation of this case:
Such as, Remington [falsely] claims defendants committed numerous crimes and violated several
environmental acts, and then many of them, such as the City Attorney of Eureka, and attorney Mr.
1
Beach, with no knowledge or any basis except Gans charismatic, fallacious LIES, swore that each
2
claim is without any factual or evidentiary support whatsoever and each claim has the sole purpose
3
to punish, harass, and intimidate anyone and everyone even somewhat related to his years of failed
4
litigation over the same absurd claims8. [There was never any contamination here now or ever?! Is that
5 what they are now falsely and conspiratorially representing?] If Gans and Plotz can get five (5) ignorant,
6 young, green attorneys, right off-the street to agree to that under penalty of perjury in about two days,
7 imagine what they can do with witnesses with two solid weeks to prepare their testimony for a jury trial!
8 144. Continuing: Additional, major presently ongoing defendant, collusive, wrongful sub-
9 conspiracies now ongoing in support of the overall primary civil conspiracy and RICO objectives
10 against Remington and the Burl Tree are: 6) Gans and Mathsons frivolous complaints to about 40
governmental agencies (see FN 33, page 207, Volume III charts, etc, ID), beginning in summer 2008 to
11
fully distract plaintiff from responding to defendants complaints and numerous related motions, which
12
frivolous motions are still ongoing today. Therefore, as with all of defendants frivolous complaints and
13
false allegations, under 18 USC 371, the statute of limitations has not yet begun to run because the
14
date of the last act of most of these allegations is basically only a few months ago or less. Many of
15 these allegations also involve federal environmental and criminal violations, with overriding federal,
16 state and local tax evasion and fraud ongoing in the background, if nothing else;7) Rampant felonious
17 evidence spoliation continues by John Mathson and his local gang under Gans enthusiastic personal
18 direction and supervision, per surveillance video; 8) The perjurious 2016 coached, collusive, exactly
19 written scripted trial testimony by all Gans SOL trial witnesses, who falsely placed Remington at the
20 crime scene in 1998, when they know he did not visit it until 2006, was a conspiracy of the first
magnitude, which aftermath and cover-up now continues. Again, note above how easily even new,
21
young officers of the court quickly join-in and pile-on to their charismatic leader Gans extortive
22
sanctions motions, attempting to preemptively crush an old pro per plaintiff, before the merits can be
23
considered when bidden by the Pied Piper, Mr. Gans. OBVIOUSLY, said young, inexperienced,
24
over-zealous attorneys have no direct independent factual or expert information whatsoever, about
25 any single material evidentiary fact in these cases, but why bother about that? They enthusiastically
26 blindly and deceitfully still sign and swear to anything that Mr. Gans and Plotz writes for their
27 . Numerous false statements were made by said attorneys Beach and Wilson, among others, in their
8
recent sanctions declarations, but not yet arising to the Mitchell firms lies, mischaracterizations and
28
blatant IGNORING of about 80% of plaintiffs most serious accusations. The aforementioned new,
uninformed, aggressive attorneys would be ordinarily inviting CCP 128.7 sanctions for their careless,
unethical, unsubstantiated false SWORN representations, based on no evidence, no legitimate
inquiry, and with clearly improper extortive purposes; however, plaintiff does not have the anger, time
or energy to seriously object to and attack all blatantly ignorant or unethical behavior in these cases
until it is literally ONE thousand times worse, as per Mr. Gans, Mathson and RAO, and about (only)
one hundred times worse as involving the other Mitchell attorneys, other named and DOE defendants.
signature, then twisted their knife and creatively improvised a little more on their own; 9) The major
1
RICO enterprises successful conspiracy to eliminate SHNs crucial environmental expert Mike Foget,
2
shortly before a scheduled trial, which could have been cataclysmic. Mr. Gans and his RICO enterprise
3
also tampered with Matt Filiar, Maje Hoyos, David Tidwell and other witnesses, shortly before the
4
anticipated 2016 contamination trial which was never held, so now that damage can possibly be
5 undone; 10) The conspiracy to defraud all involved judges with bogus, fallacious and intentionally
6 fraudulent collateral estoppel arguments of false identicality. That was based on intentionally false,
7 plagiarized statements of what a federal judge actually DID NOT necessarily determine in 2011, plus
8 fraudulently comparing Federal pendant state claims to identical state claims when the actual issue
9 was whether federal statutory issues were identical to state issues, which obviously they were not; 11)
10 OTHER: A complex, serious and quite convoluted conspiracy to remove all surface and photographic
evidence of asbestos and chrysotile on the dumpsites; improper and untimely use of an undisclosed
11
asbestos expert (Schwartz) who clandestinely visited the sites, at least a month after discovery
12
closed and/or merely reviewed evidence by photograph; plus Ferrimans fraudulent interpretation of
13
his July 6, 2011 site visit where he was personally seen by plaintiff to observe, photograph and/or
14
handle at least 23 significant large samples of asbestos pipe, and then swear that he only saw one
15 which maybe wasnt even asbestos! [Thats how Gans works his magic on all witnesses, especially
16 his own]. In summary, the alleged coconspirators violated their duty to obey the law and basic ethics,
17 in all of their testing, criminal violations above and alleged coverups, etc., implicating them all.
18 145. Conspiracy liability may properly be imposed on non-fiduciary agents or attorneys for conduct
19 which they carry-out not simply as agents or employees of fiduciary defendants, but in furtherance of
20 their own financial gain, Skarbrevik, v Cohen, (1991), 231 Cal. App. 3D 692, 709, and CACI 3600.
All of the contamination and RICO defendants here, plus the new attorney potential RICO defendants,
21
are acting solely in pursuit of their own financial gain without any regard for fairness or overall justice.
22
146. In other words, the above defendants acting in concert, all knew the overall RICO or other
23
conspiratorial objectives and reached mutual understandings to accomplish a wide-variety of unlawful
24
plans. One or more committed overt crimes and in each individual example cited above other co-
25 conspirators were aware of and intended those illegal tortful acts, agreed on achieving them in
26 advance, either expressly or tacitly. Obviously, each tortful or unlawful conspiratorial act alleged above
27 involved different people with different prior awarenesses, degrees of agreement, and advance
28 knowledge of Gans tortious plans, which cannot be fully addressed here in one page. There were
numerous different objectives involved above but the financial gain of the individual experts, lawyers,
secretaries or defendants was always the primary and ONLY driving motivation in regards to all of
these cited conspiracies. Mr. Gans alone must have made over $300,000, or maybe twice that, already
from prolonging this litigation indefinitely, for 10 years. The overriding defendant background theme
and RICO objective was Mathsons continuous almost daily vandalisms and threat thereof, and Mr.
1
Gans fraudulent and mischaracterized writings, which overall promoted a continuous extortive force
2
here for many years, which continues today. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as below.
3
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ONGOING CONSPIRACY,
4
CACI 3601, against all 16-named defendants, and potentially the other 26 possible DOE defendants.
5
147. All general and specific allegations above, and in ECF #1, ID, ALL 1220-pages, are fully
6 incorporated herein, and specifically those at Volume I: Pages 224-230, which particularize and
7 provide more than 10 specific additional examples of defendants numerous sub-conspiracies which is
8 the only real purpose for the RICO extortive racketeering Enterprises existence, which focuses on their
9 primary cover-up and RICO objectives. See also Volume I:181-249 and Volume IV: 1-738 for specific
10 details of time, place, participants and subjects for the main driving co-conspirators, which all of the
11 16 named herein, at a minimum, are now implicated with, to sink or swim or defend with respect
to every wrongful act presently, previously or subsequently done by the main criminal participants.
12
148. The previous four (4) causes of action directly above identified and described more than 20 major
13
and important, specific, presently ongoing conspiracies controlled by Mr. Gans as part of his
14
corrupt, morphing RICO defense against the original 2008 contamination allegations, and those changed,
15
new and different ones which have developed over the last nine years of expert investigations,
16
depositions and testing. Those 20 or more significant on-going conspiracies are hereby incorporated by
17 reference into this section, because otherwise it would take at least 300 more pages, or two weeks of
18 trial, to fully list and particularize the information from the 1220-pages, which actually should be 3000.
19 149. When the jury decides WHO conspired to commit or assist in the commission of the above 20 or
20 more wrongful acts against plaintiff, then they are jointly responsible for all acts done as part of the
21 conspiracy, whether the acts occurred before or after they joined the conspiracy. Obviously, with less
than two pages to devote to this cause of action, all plaintiff can do now is to summarize as follows.
22
Nine contamination defendants were originally designated in ECF #1, and 12 RICO defendants, with
23
five overlapping into both groups. Therefore, there were 16 initially charged defendants, but
24
another 26 potential DOEs were specifically named and discussed in the RICO statement, with several
25
likely to be eventually named, especially from RAO, as important, active defendants within Gans
26
RICO organization. Obviously, it is premature today to discuss numerous DOE defendants who may or
27 may not be further implicated during discovery. Therefore, at least once before trial, plaintiff will
28 clearly need to amend this complaint further to potentially add another 5-10 defendants, and
presumably make numerous other changes and augmentations. Also, planning ahead, it is already clear
that defendants will next try to pile-on simultaneously in single motions, to overwhelm Remington
with detailed, lengthy Demurrers, Motions to Strike, SJ, etc, attempting to force Remington to
respond to 16 sets of specific, detailed denials in one mere 25-page opposition. That would be
difficult, even for the greatest lawyer in the land, using several hundred pages of declarations, let
1
alone for an old pro per. THEREFORE, it can already be foreseen that plaintiff will next need to deal
2
with each specifically named defendant separately, and accordingly write individual oppositions of
3
10-25 pages EACH, in opposition to each of defendants forthcoming motions. Presumably the court
4
will assist and prevent plaintiff from falling into the trap of trying to designate with specificity, in 25
5 pages, 20 or more CLASSES of fraud allegations, totaling more than 50 or more individual criminal or
6 wrongful instances or incidents which require time, date, place, etc., against all 16 initial defendants,
7 and also help to keep the numerous subsidiary possible defendants, such as Esko, Martel, Hillyard,
8 Schwartz, Candy B, etc., OUT of a year of proceedings. THEREFORE, the court should probably
9 require each individual defendant to respond with an individual Answer, Reply and Motion to Strike
10 etc., so plaintiff can respond individually with particularity to each individual and not try to generalize
5-10 together, which is obviously not valid in a fraud case, nor is it effective here in this complaint.
11
150. In other words, at a minimum, all of the above 16-named defendants in both portions of this
12
lawsuit are civilly liable for all injuries against Remington and the Burl Tree under CACI 3601, as
13
well as RICO and the other fraud and related causes of action. For now, the specificity of Rule 9 (b) is
14
impossible to present here in three or four pages for the reasons originally presented in plaintiffs
15 Opposition to Dismissal wherein he requested at least 200 total pages for this FAC. However, since
16 defendants and the court know that said required specificity is already available and provided in ECF
17 #1, which could have already been multiplied by 2-3 even without any additional discovery, hopefully
18 that will suffice to continue this process where additional specificity will necessarily be provided
19 against Demurrers, Summary Judgment motions, and all the other delaying tactics which defendants
20 absolutely require here because they have no chance at all trying this case on the contamination
merits, and will presumably lose more ground regarding their fraudulent coverups during discovery.
21
Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment, relief and injunctions, as set forth below.
22
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING, CACI 3610,
23
against all defendants, and their counsel, Cyndy Day-Wilson and David F. Beach9
24
9
. As noted previously, Ms. Wilson and Mr. Beach have both seriously crossed the line here with their
25 multiple FALSE sworn statements that each claim is without any factual or evidentiary support
26 whatsoever and each claim (has) the sole purpose to punish, harass, and intimidate anyone and everyone
even somewhat related to his years of failed litigation over the same absurd claims. Also especially
27 objectionable, and WRONG, was Wilsons paragraph 4, which has several other, angry sworn factual
errors: including the unqualified statements that: all stemming from the same allegations that have
28
absolutely no merit; he now is attempting to maliciously continue his tirade by adding any and all
parties he could think of; Mr. Remingtons current lawsuit is wholly inappropriate...(against Eureka),
etc., obviously shes entitled to her biased opinion but not to make false sworn statements with no
properly researched, factual basis. Remington has decided not to add said above attorneys to the
coversheet and serve them in this lawsuit yet, without additional discussions with the court at the
settlement conference, however he notes now that all of the above statements are very specific, direct
and serious violations of Rule 11 (b), which said attorneys seemed to think only applies to pro se
151. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1: see Volume I: Pages 230-234,
1
And Volume II: 107-108, ID, are fully incorporated herein, which particularize defendants numerous
2
sub-conspiracies, federal statutory violations, supporting the Gans led cover-up and RICO objectives.
3
152. Plaintiff alleges that he was and still IS being harmed by said primary wrongdoers here: Gans,
4
both Mathsons, Skillings, Kishpaugh, Plotz, Brisso, Kloeppel, RAO, Nelson, Lawrence, Beach and Day.
5 Therefore, all of the 16 primary defendants are responsible now because they aided and abetted,
6 previously and also in real time over the last several months that this lawsuit was active or being
7 completed. Retroactive culpability for the state and RICO conspiratorial conduct is chargeable here.
8 153. Generally, the harmful wrongful acts alleged by plaintiff, with no pages to describe with
9 particularity which defendants committed which crimes, recently and since January 2013, include
10 without limitation, by the 12 named above: Extortion ( 1951, all); Bribery or improper influence
trading and quid pro quos ( 201, especially conducted by Brisso, and Gans); Mail fraud ( 1341, above
11
attorneys, and Mathson); and Wire fraud ( 1343, same); Obstruction of justice ( 1503, mostly Gans
12
and Plotz, as related to Magistrate Vadas and MIL #20); Witness tampering ( 1512, 90% Gans, plus
13
some Nelson, Brisso and Plotz); Retaliation against witness ( 1513, Gans, Nelson, Brisso);
14
Widespread misleading conduct: making false statements, intentionally making fraudulent, mostly
15 false and/or fallacious arguments in motion documents, intentionally omitting very material SC case
16 teaching information (favorable to plaintiff), intentionally concealing facts, and (rampantly) altering or
17 destroying material evidence, ( 1515 (a), Gans, Plotz, Mathson and now the Beach-Day false
18 statements, FN 9); Money laundering, involving RE, etc ( 1956, 1957, 1961-4, primarily RAO, Gans
19 and Mathson, pending discovery); Violations of hazardous materials hauling laws ( 5101, 2607, 2614-
20 15, etc, Mathson, Kishpaugh recently). See Volume I: 107-8 for FULL federal statutory prefixes.
154. All of the alleged 16 defendants, plus a majority of the other 26 named individuals not yet charged,
21
aided and abetted the above 12+ acting and operating defendants by advising, encouraging, promoting,
22
substantially assisting, helping to plan in advance, ratifying or adopting said above harmful wrongful
23
acts. The best single example would be Joy Mathsons continuous EXTREMELY enthusiastic
24
encouragement, cheer-leading and aiding and abetting (Volume IV: 519, ID) of John Mathsons
25 almost continuous extortive, vandalizing activity of all of plaintiffs and the Burl Trees property every
26 few days, since 2008. She makes no secret of her hate and envy for plaintiff and she has also not kept it
27 litigants. For example, clearly the Beach-Day false and misleading statements are solely for: An
improper, extortive purpose to scare plaintiff away; none of those statements or defenses are warranted
28
by existing law; their factual claims and denials do not have proper valid, or any evidentiary support nor
were any of those statements independently researched or properly authenticated and verified before they
dutifully and blindly signed-on to the Plotz-Gans RICO party line, and therefore their denials were
improper, unethical and unwarranted. Hence the entire aiding and abetting discussion above applies
specifically to them, as well as to the other defendants. It is especially ironic that the City has decided
to fully join-up with the RICO enterprise, when plaintiff has frequently and kindly explained, in writing,
how they could easily get out of this lawsuit entirely by providing their asbestos information informally.
secret that she admires and applauds anyone that damages Remingtons property fences or gardens
1
or even the windows in his too big mansion. She said that directly to plaintiff in 2006, saying that
2
people vandalized your property because they do not respect YOU. She also thought that the
3
deer should have full run of plaintiffs rare gardens, just like they always had for thousands of years,
4
ETC. Joy Mathson is a rabid animal activist who would probably kill any human to save one of her
5 yapping dogs or birds. To plaintiff, shes equally if not more guilty than John of at least 150 crimes.
6 155. All of the above acting 12 wrongdoers, plus the total of about 40 total co-conspirators,
7 cotortfeasors, and suspected, or likely aiders and abettors of one or more of the several hundred
8 wrongful and criminal acts committed against plaintiff, knew in one or more cases that the primary
9 wrongdoers were going to, or did commit breaches of duty and crimes against plaintiff. More of that
10 could be explained in another 2-300 pages, as required in future oppositions and proceedings.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth above and below.
11
TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FELONY VANDALISM, PROPERTY
12
DESTRUCTION AND TRESPASS caused by John Mathson and his tamed, house-broken deer,
13
PC 594, against both Mathsons, RICO leader Gans and anyone else proven to have aided and
14
abetted, CACI 3610, and against all discovered RICO co-conspirators or cotortfeasors.
15 156. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1: see Volume I: Pages 234-240
16 (FN 37), Volume IV: 518-19, are fully incorporated herein, and specifically those which particularize
17 ONLY about 10% (so far) of Mathsons and defendants related Burl Tree property destroying acts.
18 157. John Mathson, with Joy Mathson and Mr. Gans as his two chief cheerleaders and abettors is guilty
19 of violating PC 594 in that he maliciously vandalized Remingtons property by damaging it (a) (2) or
20 destroying it (a) (3). The penalty for those acts are, (b) (1): If the property damage was valued at greater
than $400, Mathsons crimes would be punishable by up to one year in jail and up to a $10,000 fine,
21
which would be appropriate for at least half of his crimes. The other 40-50% per (b) (2), were actually
22
under $400 in damages at replacement value, and his penalty there is still up to one year in jail and a
23
$1000 fine. Plaintiff now has sufficient video evidence to jail Mathson and his abettors for several years.
24
158. As noted, and related to PC 594, Mathson also spends an inordinate amount of his time:
25 watching; walking the perimeter of Remingtons land; practicing his actionable voyeurism, generally
26 with/camera in hand and/or scouting Remingtons property after dark, looking for property security
27 vulnerabilities, or something more prurient; scheming about where to strike next, and studying where
28 the current wild deer paths are to give them help, getting into the buffet, with his chain cutters.
159. As a result of the above more than 150 criminal acts by John Mathson, probably with direct
assistance from Joy Mathson on at least one occasion, and perhaps in collusion with others of his local
gang, to be determined, Mathson and his leader Mr. Gans damaged plaintiff substantially, according to
proofs at trial. Plaintiff also alleges that said above defendants are also guilty of extortion under 2005
California Penal Code Sections 518-526, chapter 7, and specifically 519-1; 520, 523-24 and 526.
1
Perhaps not directly relevant here, plaintiff intends to have time to take those violations up with the
2
County District Attorney or others, imminently. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment set forth below.
3
TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY SANCTION FOR
4
INTENTIONAL EVIDENCE SPOLIATION, against John Mathson and Mr. Gans.
5
160. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1: e.g.,Volume I: Pages 240-247,
6 including FN #38 are fully incorporated herein, which particularize some of the specific evidence
7 spoliation by defendants, already fully provable with time & dates, with photos, videos and charts.
8 161. John Mathson, Gans, and other aiders and abettors to be determined among the local Westgate
9 gang, have altered, removed and reduced the size of evidence and therefore spoiled and cleaned up the
10 surface of the dump site in order to reduce its visual impact in photographs or to a jury. The resulting
11 major alteration of a crime scene is a crime in itself because it drastically understates the magnitude of
the problem and exhibits a consciousness of guilt. Hazardous materials are buried 10-20 feet deep and
12
many of them still are exposed at the surface of the land when they weighed too many thousands of
13
pounds to alter, destroy or remove. However, in those cases Mathson hand-covered what sticks out of
14
the ground with buckets full of redwood needles, and also planted dense weeds and ground-covers to
15
conceal what is below ground as much as possible, especially in photographs from hundred feet away.
16
162. Plaintiff has very substantial proofs of what was there originally, what has been altered, removed
17 or further buried, (and WHY), including dated, multi-camera surveillance video which caught John
18 Mathson and Gans in the act (s). Removing the evidence is like OJ washing all the blood away,
19 removing the bodies at Bundy crime scene, and discovering the bloody glove and burning it completely.
20 163. The damages to Remington from that site alteration and reduction of the visual impact of the
21 dump to near zero is potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars if the jury agrees with Gans, that if
you cant see it then its not there, even if its 20-feet deep into the ground with little surface exposure.
22
164. Relief requested: plaintiff requests severe, meaningful evidentiary sanctions including: accepting
23
all of plaintiffs contamination evidence, volume and toxicity tests and calculations without objection;
24
barring all defendants counter-contamination evidence which attempts to reduce the facts of a
25
hazardous waste dump to near absurdities; accept all of plaintiffs historic dump photographs from the
26
last 10-years showing the changes in evidence, alterations and removals; and, allowing all of plaintiffs
27 PSE chart simulations into evidence without objection which portray what is there, what was there
28 previously and what is known to be below the thin veneer of dirt and gravel and redwood needles, most
of which has been added by hand recently, since Gans conceived his plan to visually deceive the jury.
SEVERE SANCTIONABLE DELIBERATE CCP 128.6 ETHICS VIOLATIONS
in all these cases by Mr. Gans, and to a lesser, or MUCH lesser extent by Brisso, Plotz, Kloeppel, Beach
& Day, in that order. Although not a cause of action, it is the single most important issue here.
165. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1: at Volume I: Pages 244-247 (
1
690-696); & Volume IV: 10-94 and 672-722, ID, are fully incorporated herein, which fully
2
particularize perhaps half of the more objectionable ethics violations and the sources of others.
3
166. Defendants attorneys ethics violations have been emphasized here already, especially in ECF
4
#39, and #45, Exhibits 19-21, (128.7) but their significance here can NEVER be overstated. Mr. Gans
5 ethical failures dominate their every motion document, plaintiffs oppositions and his Replies.
6 167. Nothing that defendants present as fact, truth or evidence can be fully believed without
7 verification and plaintiff must point that out to court at every possible non-argumentative opportunity.
8 168. No defendants expert, photo or statement is ever just impeccably honest, because at the center of
9 Gans defense there is no heart, soul, or beacon of truth and very few objective true facts among their
10 mostly mischaracterized ones. If this court accepts that fact, and defendants see that has happened, they
absolutely will not and cannot try these contamination cases to a jury on the merits. They desperately
11
and successfully attempted for 10-years now to avoid a true trial on various technical grounds, including
12
numerous ALL failed Summary Judgment attempts on the scientific merits. However in 2016 they did
13
deceptively fallaciously turn a simple SOL trial into an improper erroneous summary judgment motion,
14
and somehow confused or influenced Judge Reinholtsen to inexplicably sign it, contrary to Mangini II
15 and other authorities. MIL #20, caused the above injustice per ECF #45, Exhibits #1, #2, #15 and 4A.
16 169. In November 2014, Judge Watson heard a preliminary, state 128.7 ethics motion based largely on
17 39 serious federal case violations, and he Denied it at this time, inferring that more state evidence
18 was needed there but that such a motion might be ripe in federal court, perhaps in the near future.
19 170. No appropriate morally-principled Humboldt County judge is currently available to hear real ethics
20 charges against one of their own, especially when the Judge for all purposes recently shared
adjacent offices as law partners for 25 years, with the RICO defendants. The only two current judges in
21
the Remington v. Mathson, et al, state cases are Judge Reinholtsen and Wilson, who BOTH are severely
22
ethically challenged and pressured, having BOTH admitted to felony embezzlement and perjury
23
charges, currently not being prosecuted, due to their huge caseloads up here and gross understaffing.
24
TWENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF B & P CODE 17,200, ET SEQ,
25
(See 17,206.1 (a) (1) (2), for corrupt, unethical activities, against all defendants, & nearly to Beach-Day.
26
171. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1, ID, are fully incorporated herein,
27 and specifically those at Volume I: Pages 247-251, ( 697-706), and Volume IV.
28 172. As fully alleged in the reference documents and factual allegations above, defendants, and all of
them, employed unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, corrupt, fraudulent competitive practices under that
statute, which continue, against the Burl Trees land, business property and goodwill in the community
plus the numerous other 200+ unfair practices, particularized in ECF #1, e.g. 699, page 248, ID.
172. Said listed wrongful, unfair, deceptive and/or corrupt business practices and acts damaged
Remington and Burl Tree as explained herein, wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
1
TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (S),
2
CACI 303, against Jeff Nelson, John Mathson and Russell Gans.
3
173. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1, ID, ALL 1220-pages, are fully
4
incorporated, especially those at Volume I: Pages 251-261, ( 707-726); & Volume IV:187-205.
5 174. Plaintiff had a simple written and course of conduct contract with John Aveggio, head scientist,
6 chief geologist and engineer at SHN. Although Mr. Nelson was Mr. Aveggios administrative boss in
7 some sense, Aveggios work was entirely independent of Nelson, and since Aveggio was more valuable to
8 SHN, Inc than Nelson, had Nelson ever interfered in his work, Aveggio could have gone over Nelsons
9 head and gotten him fired, if anybody was going to go in a power struggle. Mr. Aveggio was hired to
10 provide litigation support services which in our course of conduct and dealings meant providing
defensible evidence from the dumpsites in order for him to prepare for summary judgments, depositions,
11
settlement or a trial, appeals and as many retrials as needed until the encroaching debris was removed.
12
175. For at least 2 years the very friendly relationship between plaintiff and Mr. Aveggio went as
13
harmoniously as any plaintiff and his expert could possibly ask for. Our 100% agreement about the
14
litigation strategy, and our total meeting of the minds, was so perfect that we initially worked for about
15 a year with no contract, as none was needed. But then one day, Mr. Aveggio decided to write a brief
16 engineers contract, which we never referred to again, because it was cursory, virtually meaningless and
17 entirely unnecessary, at least while he was alive. We had absolute trust in each other, perfect rapport
18 about what our sole objective was, and never was there a doubt that we would continue our relationship
19 until we won this case as quickly and economically as possible, by settlement or as many trials as
20 required. When Mr. Aveggio prematurely and shockingly died in January 2012, SHN and Mr. Nelson
promptly replaced him with Mr. Foget, who was Mr. Aveggios close friend, confidant and competent
21
environmental engineering replacement at SHN. Mr. Foget visited the sites in 2012, was very excited
22
about learning and taking over litigation support services for SHN and for two years he was carefully
23
trained to duplicate Aveggios work, worked-with plaintiff closely, and was made familiar with all of
24
Aveggios extensive work file, future testing plans, two major substantive depositions, TWO Summary
25 Judgment Declarations, comprehensive soil and water tests, trial strategies and techniques, etc., and
26 meanwhile Remington timely paid ALL his bills and timely performed all contractual obligations with
27 respect to him and SHN. Mr. Foget also had a 100% understanding that he was being trained to be a
28 fine, top-class advocating, testifying environmental trial expert, and for NOTHING ELSE.
176. In summer 2014, shortly before the scheduled trial date, Mr. Nelson abruptly, unilaterally, illegally
and clearly under corrupt RICO influences from Mr. Gans, abruptly breached plaintiffs contract with
Mr. Foget and SHN, without any provocation from plaintiff, or reason given. Both Aveggio and Foget
clearly understood from our systematic, consistent course of dealing, that the relationships objectives,
plans and final purposes were solely intended to get plaintiff successfully through one or more
1
contamination trials, and obviously nothing less than that. Therefore, Nelsons breach was outrageous,
2
intentional, arbitrary, without reasonable cause, or any stated reason, and gravely damaged plaintiff.
3
177. Plaintiff timely paid all SHN invoices without discussion or dispute, during the five years of our
4
relationship. Mr. Nelson wrongfully, tortiously breached the contract without provocation greatly
5
damaging plaintiff more than $40,000 in time and cash, plus emotional and treble RICO damages.
6 178. Mr. Nelson intentionally, tortiously and corruptly interfered with plaintiffs expert contract and
7 therefore his breach was wanton, willful, unconscionable, without reasonable cause, indecent and
8 intolerable, Therefore warranting imposition of emotional and/or punitive damages according to proofs.
9 Mr. Gans intentional interference, corrupt influences or other future inducements on behalf of the RICO
10 enterprise or Mitchell firm also warrants treble damages against him personally, according to proofs.
11 179. Three other significant contract breaches are also alleged here, all by John Mathson which details
are fully known to defendants attorneys, are contained in the last 10 years of state court records, and
12
space does not permit any detailed summaries here, at this stage. (1) Plaintiff here refers to the known
13
and well-litigated 2007 breached handshake oral contract, which was fully ratified between the
14
parties, but sabotaged and entirely undone by Mr. Gans in January 2008 when he repudiated plaintiffs
15
written codification of said fully ratified oral contract, by submitting his version of it which cost
16
plaintive an additional 12-$17,000. (2) The 2003 Agreed Boundary fence contract has also been
17 fully litigated and discussed in various state motion documents, but has never been clearly understood
18 by the state court or finally settled in a state appeal. It also was fully ratified for 4 years, but gradually
19 became undone during the litigation of Gans preemptive lawsuit DR 080669. (3) 2016 fence contract.
20 Mr. Gans and Mathson breached the comprehensive 2016 contract drafted by plaintiffs lawyer Harvey
21 Roberts, between Farmers Insurance Company and the Mathsons, essentially by: (1) Prematurely
beginning the project; completing it prior to the final resolution of DR 080678, which was the clear
22
intention of the contract; (2) Grossly violating all security precautions during the secret premature
23
construction, without warnings to plaintiff to verify and supplement defendants deliberately destructive
24
deer control measures, resulting in dozens of deer and bear ravaging and damaging plaintiffs property
25
during August 2016 and April 2017, ALL in violation of the contract; (3) Improperly disturbing the
26
steep mountainside before and during the rainiest season in recent memory, causing severe erosion and
27 direct slide damages, etc. Other related damages will be requested at trial, as set forth below.
28 TWENTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TORTIOUS AND INTENTIONAL
INTERFERENCE WITH FOUR ORAL AND WRITTEN CONTRACTS AND CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONS, CACI 2201, against Jeff Nelson (the Fourth), Russell Gans (the first three between
Mathson and Remington), and any RICO enterprise associates discovered to be involved in breaching,
interfering with, or aiding and abetting same, the above four (4) contracts in Cause of Action # 26.
180. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1, ID, ALL 1220-pages, are fully
1
incorporated herein, and specifically those at Volume I: Pages 251-261, ( 707-726) and Volume IV,
2
RICO Statement pages 187-205, as to Nelson; and Gans (pages 10-94, 672-722, 87-89, ETC, ID).
3
181. This cause relates directly to the above #26 four (4) contract breaches, only here alleging and
4
inferring various fraudulent, conspiratorial and nefarious purposes behind all four (4) of those contract
5
breaches, which all, not coincidentally, implicate Mr. Gans. The first 3 breaches by John Mathson of
6 contracts with Remington (in 2007, 2008 of the 2003 contract and in 2016-17), were caused by Gans
7 improper influence, selfish, wrongful and corrupt advice to Mathson. Whereas the fourth tortious breach
8 occurred from Gans wrongful pressure or other economic inducements on Mr. Nelson which clear
9 wrongful purposes are already easily inferrable from Mr. Nelsons recent careless, candid remarks.
10 182. The fourth breach was the most damaging to plaintiff and will be addressed first: (1) It was a
11 five-year contract between plaintiff and SHN for litigation support services and provided plaintiff
with an eminent, experienced, forensic environmental trial expert, FOR TRIAL, and nothing else.
12
That contract was illegitimately breached without notice, cause or provocation by Mr. Nelson, who
13
improperly acted for SHN, bullying Mr. Foget. Nelson is not the highest authority at SHN and he
14
should have gotten Board approval for such a significant tortious contract breach only a few weeks
15
before a trial date. He did not care about Remingtons interests or damages because it seems rather
16
obvious that he was promised greater financial rewards by the Mitchell firm, if he removed SHNs
17 employee, Mike Foget, from Remingtons lawsuit, presumably causing Remington to forfeit or lose.
18 Whether Nelson was actually personally bribed with money by Gans and his RICO enterprise or was
19 merely improperly influenced and tempted by future business promises, remains to be discovered, but
20 SHN now supports the Mitchell firms numerous powerful environmental clients. As a result of the
21 improper interferences and tortious breach of the above contract, plaintiffs reputation and credibility
were severely damaged with the state court, plus he incurred attorney fees and thousands of dollars of
22
other costs. Mr. Foget would have easily won his friend Johns case with convincing, sincere emotion,
23
which Remingtons present replacement expert cannot reasonably or enthusiastically duplicate.
24
183. Similarly, directly related to Cause #26, and with the same state case supporting fact patterns in the
25
first two interfered with tortious contract breaches, Volume IV, ID at pages 692-3 (at 11.) discusses the
26
2003 Agreed Boundary fence contract which Mr. Gans intentionally confused with the 2007 handshake
27 agreement oral contract discussed above, confusing Judge Reinholtsen and costing plaintiff $2000.
28 The third Gans tortiously breached contract between plaintiff and John Mathson, is discussed in ECF
#1, Volume I, pages 87:7-89:19, was in 2016-17, and relates to the premature construction and related
security breaches of the 2016 contract ending case # DR080669, regarding the new insurance company-
financed animal and human security fence along the common property boundary. Mr. Gans unilaterally
materially violated, corrupted and intentionally authorized breaches of many terms of that formal, very
detailed specifically intended attorney-drafted contract, seriously damaging plaintiff, as easily proven.
1
184. The tortious interferences with, and resulting breach of the above SHN expert trial litigation
2
witness contract as well as the prematurely implemented above 2016 contract, drafted primarily by Mr.
3
Roberts, were both inspired and accomplished by Gans RICO racketeering enterprise, since both were
4
fully within its scope, dates and purpose. The intentional, tortious, corrupt interference with plaintiffs
5 SHN environmental expert trial witness contract and therefore ALL the subsequent contract breaches
6 above were wanton, willful, unconscionable, without reasonable cause, indecent and intolerable and
7 therefore warrant imposition of emotional, punitive or treble damages, according to proofs at trial.
8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment based on the above, as set forth below.
9 TWENTY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TRESPASS TO CHATTELS,
10 against John Mathson, Gans and all co-conspiratorial and co-tortfeasor RICO defendants.
185. All general and specific allegations above, below and in ECF #1, ID, are incorporated herein.
11
186. John Mathson and his RICO gang under Gans direction have, and continue to interfere with,
12
damage, vandalize, impair, destroy, and steal the Burl Trees personal property, including, without
13
limitation: 4 major irrigation tanks, numerous pumps, 5 miles of piping, one mile of 8 security fences,
14
equipment, Burl inventory, nursery and permanent plants, and large, expensive Anderson windows, etc.
15 187. Obviously, plaintiff gave no consent whatsoever for any defendants activity on the property.
16 188. Defendants intentionally interfered with plaintiffs possessory interests in said above property,
17 causing numerous damages, per ECF #1: Volume IV: 656-670, ID, and as prayed for below.
18 TWENTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION, Conduct and Participation in a RICO
19 Enterprise through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity, 1961 (3), (4), (5); 18 USC 1962 (c),
20 against all presently named RICO defendants: Gans, Lawrence, John Mathson, Olson, RAO
21 Construction Inc., Skillings, Plotz, Brisso, Mitchell firm, LLP, Kloeppel, Nelson and McBride.
22 189. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every factual and fraudulent allegation of the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein and additionally FULLY incorporates by reference all RICO
23
related facts, theory, definitions and citations in Volumes II-IV, filed as ECF #1 in April, 2017, 941 pages.
24
190. The named RICO defendants and their co-conspirators are a group of persons associated together in
25
fact for the common purpose of carrying out an ongoing criminal enterprise as described in ECF #1 (see
26
e.g. Volume II, (1115, page 99, ID) and below. They have pursued their fully-described objectives
27 (Volume IV, pages 489-513, ID) herein, through a comprehensive campaign of lies, dishonesty, fraud,
28 fallacious devices, mischaracterizations and extortive threats, against a background of FEAR and
continuous serious criminal property crimes against Remingtons business property, conducted by
John Mathson, in order to coerce Remington into surrendering his land, dropping all of his justified
lawsuits and eventually paying the RICO defendants their hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs.
191. Gans associated in fact enterprise, as per 18 USCA 1961 (4), consisted of each named
defendant participating in the operation of or management of a separate entity, portion of, or associated
1
group within the associated in fact enterprise; and, courts require; 1) Some commonly shared purposes
2
among the members of the group, which here have been specifically delineated as the Enterprises
3
purposes and objectives, Vol. IV: 311-313, 489-513, ID; 2) a continuity of and ascertainable
4
structure10 and personnel distinct from merely joining together to commit the pattern of racketeering.
5 The key element: The Pattern Requirement
6 192. To allege his RICO claim, Remington also must allege and ultimately prove that each defendant
7 used, or worked within the enterprise, to commit a pattern of racketeering, in violation of 18 USC
8 1961 (5). To allege a pattern of racketeering here, Remington HAS alleged that each defendant
9 committed two or more predicate acts, (here, MANY more than two for each RICO defendant) and
10 engaged in long-term criminal conduct, as defined under the criminal acts listed under 1961, that
were both related and continuous. If those criteria are met, then the next important characteristic to
11
determine is whether the asserted pattern of racketeering activity has sufficient closed-ended or
12
open-ended continuity, HJ v. Northwestern, 492 US 229, 242 (1989). Gans RICO racketeering
13
enterprise here, has exhibited a clear and presently continuing pattern of open-ended continuity.
14
An Open-ended pattern ( 1024, VOL. IV, ID) is one in which a lawsuit is brought while criminal,
15 wrongful and fraudulent acts continue, and the RICO scheme poses a threat of indefinite continuity11.
16 193. Although reasonable reliance is not an element of RICO, plaintiff has relied on defendants general
17 ethics and honesty to obey all statutes, court orders, good faith principles of fair dealing, rules of
18 evidence and rules forbidding perjury, but increasingly, that general, basic reliance has been misplaced.
19 194. Plaintiffs entire ECF #1 1220-page initial pleading, which could have been much longer, focused
20 largely on 400+ RICO predicate acts, frauds, specific facts and circumstances, not properly summarized
in a few pages. Mr. Gans led a RICO enterprise of the presently 12-named RICO defendants, plus at least
21
the 25 others listed in Volume IV, which conducted various wrongful activities against plaintiff in
22
pursuit of their objectives through a pattern of racketeering activity. Those RICO objectives are crucial
23 10
. Gans Enterprises structure here is very clear and was described in detail at 6 (a-d) in the RICO Statement. Other than
24 the core leadership in the Mitchell firm, the enterprise consists primarily of part-time consultants assisting Gans, as he
specifically requests, see US v. Turkette, 452 US 576, 583 (1981). Remington has drawn-up 3-4 RICO Enterprise
25 organization charts, authority flow diagrams and one federal predicate acts circular diagram which shows how the
integral RICO leadership of Gans, Lawrence, Mathson, Skillings, Brisso, Olson, Plotz, Kloeppel, Gilbride and sometimes
26 other prominent associates commit specific crimes which immediately damage Remington and his business property as
shown. Some of those charts were attached with the photos in Volume III (ECF #1), and others will be available for trial.
11
27 . To determine whether defendants conduct constitutes a close-ended or open-ended pattern of racketeering activity, a trier
of fact may consider a variety of factors, including: 1) length of time over which the predicate acts were committed; 2) the
28 number of predicate acts; 3) the variety of predicate acts; 4) the number of participants; 5) the number of victims; 6) the
presence of separate schemes; and 7) the occurrence of distinct injuries, GICC v. Tech, 67 F. 3d 463, 466-68 (2nd 1995).
Of those factors, the duration of the conduct is probably the most important and courts repeatedly reject RICO claims
for the span of criminal acts is less than a year (cite). Here, plaintiff has alleged 17 categories of predicate acts on page 5
of Volume IV (ID, ECF #1, with arson #18, and like #17, is subject to additional discovery. The Draconian 50-page limit
here (ALL plaintiffs RICO complaint guides are from 62 (Clinton) to 197 (Chevron) pages) do not permit a detailed
listing of specific predicate acts for each named defendant, however they are easily found in ECF #1, as listed by defendant
in the RICO Statement index, between Pages 10-230 and 307-488 are two locations stating what the specific allegations
and detailed patterns of racketeering activity are against each named RICO defendant, for answering purposes.
here and are most clearly summarized at: ECF #1,Volume II, page 61 (1007); Volume IV: 311-13, and
1
pages 489-513, ID. Then, Pages 313-16, ID importantly explain other Gans schemes, frauds, extortion
2
attempts and other conduct intended to destroy plaintiffs health, will, LEL, finances and experts.
3
195. Overall, Gans RICO enterprise was intended to commit multiple federal and state crimes and
4
frauds against Remington in seeking an unfair and wrongful benefit for Mathson and themselves as
5 explained, ID. Destroying Remingtons health and wealth, stealing his land, not paying rent, and not
6 removing their admitted contamination are all unfair sought benefits clearly motivated by their own
7 greedy financial gain, avoidance of criminal culpability for themselves, the necessity of technically
8 dismissing Remingtons just lawsuit, and then forcing his family to tragically pay half a million dollars
9 of their expenses, to unjustly enriched themselves! Much of their criminal activity was not fraud per
10 se, however there has been continuous federal mail and wire fraud, per 18 USC 1341 & 43, plus the
dozens of alleged state frauds. See also Vol. II: 58, 1000-1 (ID) for one sentence summary of this case.
11
196. As fully explained in the above references, plaintiff has adequately alleged an association in fact
12
enterprise (see Volume II, 1115, page 99) with each named defendant participating in the operation or
13
management of the enterprise. Said enterprise deleteriously affected the Burl Trees interstate
14
commerce business, and directly caused the numerous cited damages at 1150, through page 118, ID.
15 197. Although racketeering extortion is believed to be the primary predicate act perpetrated here, there
16 were also other wrongful RICO plans, schemes and objectives to defraud Remington with the intent to
17 kill his case quickly and entirely using various mail fraud12, and related devices which had a
18 reasonable foreseeability of accomplishing their wrongful purpose, and as alleged above plaintiff was
19 frequently duped and did reasonably rely on many of the enterprises schemes and frauds for longer
20 than a suspicious, semi-honest attorney probably would have. See 1138-42, Volume II, ID for more.
198. The clear, coherent and effective RICO enterprises command structure was best summarized on
21
the graphic GANS RICO ENTERPRISE ORGANIZATION CHART-2017, Volume III, ID, NOT
22
provided again, but incorporated by reference. Note that Linda Lawrence financed it all through Gans.
23
199. All defendants did conduct or participate either directly or indirectly in the conduct of the affairs of
24
said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, all in violation of 18 USC 1961 (3),(4)
25 & (5), and 1962 (c). All parties and defendants named are individuals under the meaning of 1961 (3),
26 see Volume II, ID, pages 13-29 for RICO defendants, with no Kishpaugh, Joy Mathson or Randall YET;
27 12
. To prove a RICO claim based on mail or wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1343, a RICO plaintiff must
28 prove that each defendant intentionally engaged in a scheme to defraud, and 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). When pled as RICO predicate acts, the elements of mail or wire fraud have been
identified as 1) a 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 here to carry out Gans scheme. Examples of mail and wire
fraud are found at Volume IV, ID: page 37:20-41; 25: 11-27 (severance); pages 173-175; 326:13 -331:11, and elsewhere.
See also, Volume I, pages 13-30, ID, for environmental parties, DOES and relationships, all relevant.
1
200. During the four calendar years prior to April 2017, all defendants did cooperate jointly and
2
severally in the commission of two or more of the RICO predicate acts itemized in the 1961 RICO
3
statutes and in ECF #1, Volume IV: 307. 5 (a) & (b), ID are KEY and sixteen (16) of the most
4
obviously violated statutes are listed by category of predicate act, 1961, and who violated which law,
5 when and how. Another important exposition is the 2016 draft of the Chronological Pattern of
6 Predicate Acts, 132 pages (356-488, Volume IV, ID) described for miscellaneous enterprise members.
7 Additionally, at pages 10-230, individual defendants are listed with a lengthy discussion of what
8 predicate acts they allegedly committed, which has been condensed into a few paragraphs below, space
9 permitting. Also, as alleged, most of the predicate acts have continued recently and are calculated and
10 premeditated intentionally to threaten and prove continuity, also in violation of 1962 (c).
201. The general 16-18 categories of predicate acts violated by the RICO defendants are listed in
11
Volume II: 107-08, and Volume IV: 5, ID, and were discussed in considerable detail within several
12
organizations, at 5., pages 307-488 of Volume IV, ID. Defendants primary corrupt, unethical and
13
criminal schemes involve extortion devices, such as direct threats of personal and property violence,
14
HUGE sanctions, all made REAL and believable with continuous ACTUAL destruction of business
15 property, provided against a continuous day-to-day underlying pattern of mail fraud perpetrated by
16 Gans, with specific examples discussed at Volume IV: 438-463, A-Q, 37, & 685-722, ID; however,
17 another 40-60 are available in the 30,000+ page case files, as time permits, and will be used in a trial.
18 202. Some of the more important alleged predicate acts committed by each of the named defendants
19 were fully discussed in Volume IV: 10-211, ECF #37 (72 page DBR), and ECF #21 and #36 (all
20 incorporated by reference) and briefly summarized below, with less than a page left to use:
Gans and Mathson were adequately addressed in the 72-page recent DBR opposition to sanctions;
21
Lawrence: See Vol. IV: 94-108. Controller and financial CEO of RICO enterprise, which will be hurt by
22
her apparent alleged departure. Chief Gans motivator (ID: 95); Double pays Gans for many false
23
expenses (ID, 95: 9-21); Some discovery needed on intentionality, kick-backs from Gans and details,
24
but her ANGER is known (98); Culpable for treble damages; Mail fraud known, but not dates when she
25 retracted $100k offer to ZERO in August 2011; She encouraged bribery, extortion, exaction, vandalism,
26 etc for 11 years and now is ducking service. Jointly responsible for any Gans and Mathson crimes;
27 Olson and RAO: Criminal hauler and excavation contractor, made over $1 million on his illegal 1998
28 dump at 778 Westgate (ID:142-44); serious and repeated criminal extortion of Bob Figas, 12/12-6/13,
forcing him not to excavate on plaintiffs land anywhere; in default here, but not in DR140426;
Personally known to have conducted massive money laundering from 1998-present; RAO employee
Skillings obstructed justice in 8/2016 at SOL trial; need discovery of all types as to financial records and
mail frauds; retaliated against all plaintiffs excavation witnesses: Alves, Figas and Marsh, causing large
damages; made false ( 1503) statements at SOL trial about who financed the 1998 Mathson project;
1
violated 1957, 1961-4, 2607, 2614-15 and 2642 since 1998, details to be discovered and
2
presented if they ever answer; Known 201 bribery of CHP, Dalka and Figas; RAO in general stinks
3
and will be analyzed by a forensic accountant; 1511 gambling (ID; 156-158); 1512 witness tampering
4
of Figas; 1957 property sales with laundered money known, personally observed between 1999-2010.
5 Skillings: Virtually every Olson crime applies to Skillings as he was the instrument for much of the above,
6 is related to the 1951 and 1912-13 allegations, especially; Also 1512-13 witness tampering and
7 retaliation against Figas, 1503 serial perjury in August 2016 and previously; Presumably 1957
8 violations subject to discovery of the dates of his new real estate purchases; 1343 phone fraud related to
9 the above, etc; He is Gans primary RICO muscle when he needs something ruthless or unconscionable;
10 also guilty of numerous state frauds, conspiracies, perjury such as pretending to be an independent
contractor not a corporate employee, under oath, i.e. Vol. IV: 167-171, for more highly specific details.
11
Plotz: More than 20 specific provable mail and email wire frauds have been submitted already, pre-
12
discovery, from among at least 40 provable acts of varying degrees of criminality, such as his extensive
13
MIL #20 signed, obviously fallacious deceptions, his extensive severance motion frauds and numerous
14
expert proceedings frauds. A rich bonanza of discovery is expected from him because he has full
15 knowledge of all of Gans schemes, devices, crimes and the clear intent to destroy Remington completely
16 in fulfillment of their RICO objectives. 1341-43 are key, ID page 173-6; Plotz specializes in the
17 fraudulent partial self-serving paraphrasing of cases, and has assisted Gans 1503- 1512 witness
18 training, amazing photographic memory, identical recalls (by 5 lying witnesses of events 20 years
19 ago), witness coaching, tampering, obstructing justice and he is complicit in all cover-ups. Brisso: See
20 sanctions DBR, RS, ID pages 177-9, incorporated by reference: He was adjudicated by Judge Miles to
have defrauded Remington, Allied, and the court repeatedly from 2009-12 in state & federal proceedings;
21
colluded with LAFCo, Martel, Esko and other government officials to engineer the surprising
22
exoneration of Mathsons massive residential hazardous waste dump nuisance, by means yet to be fully
23
investigated, which included fraudulently influencing Ms. Martel to accept Blue Rocks proven
24
incompetent testing data, without any adversarial proceedings. Brisso and Gans then successfully applied
25 that fallacy to a different piece of property to defraud Remington out of remediation by Allied Insurance;
26 Brisso inferentially influenced Judge Reinholtsen with an obvious retirement offer, after his imminent
27 firing or retirement from Court, to return to the firm, get his old office back and work as many high
28 paid hours as he wants; has absolute influence still in the County Counsels office and has fully barred
plaintiffs star witness Maje Hoyos from future testimony, in effect, see ID: 179: 18-23. Now has major
conflict of interest protecting Boyd Davis of the City of Eureka, etc. Kloeppel: See ID, pages 208-211;
178: 4, etc. He has written numerous corrupt, inaccurate substantive mail fraud documents in this case,
such as the deceptive Special Interrogatories Set Number Two and Three which admissions and
disclosures of testimony were grossly violated by Gans in 2016, and then inexplicably backed-up by an
1
apparently biased court. He knows Gans frauds and is defending them. Mitchell firm, LLP: Everyone in
2
the building is known to be involved now, in direct or indirect ways. CCP 128.7 (c) (1) especially
3
makes sanctions applicable to all, i.e. the law firm of the perpetrators. Nelson: See ID: 187-205,
4
Sanctions DBR, etc for details, about 1951 extortion, state conspiracy, fraud, contract; 1503
5 obstruction of justice, real-time federal perjury involving the present RICO cover-up of the overall
6 conspiracy, extensive real-time 1341 recent mail fraud in recent PERJURED DECLARATION;
7 1512 tampering with plaintiffs principal trial witness Foget; 1513 retaliation against star witness
8 Hoyos, and her various technicians, and even significantly obstructing Dr. McEdwards work.
9 203. Concise list of Gans, Plotz and Brisso frauds perpetrated on plaintiff in the state and federal
10 courts, all following page citations refer to ECF #1, Volume IV, the 738-page RS: More than a dozen
frivolous, unsuccessful fee and sanction requests; The twin 6 pipes fraud: Two solid pipes carrying
11
spring water which dont drain fill and were tested incompetently (page 687); Major fraud of willfully
12
plagiarizing a Federal Judges Summary Judgment Order, where Gans put his own false narrative in
13
Judges quotation marks (688); the MIL #20 fraud (688, ETC); Fraudulent misrepresentation of
14
plaintiffs CWA claim and permanent nuisance/trespass positions (689); Fraud of deliberately not testing
15 on Remingtons land (690, 9.); DR 080669 frauds related to false claim that Remington contaminated
16 own property by equating redwood burl sloppiness & visual nuisance with looking like and BEING
17 hazardous materials contamination (691); Fraudulent conflation of the 2003 Agreed Fence Contract
18 with the 2007 oral handshake contract (and writing) resolving all issues (692); Fraudulent massive
19 understatements of toxicity, volume (703), and the hazardousness of Mathsons encroaching fill (693);
20 fraudulent misrepresentation of the epidemic quantities of E. coli and coliform seeping from Mathsons
unpermitted, non-perking septic system (694); The Ferriman asbestos frauds (695); Dozens of material,
21
on the record 2016 SOL pretrial frauds (696), as even a Eureka lawyer if he speaks at all, must speak
22
the truth; Gans fraudulent misrepresentations about Mathsons huge amount of evidence spoliation
23
(697); The fraudulent concealment and cover-up of Mathson use of their illegal septic system which
24
severely contaminates Remingtons land (699); Fraudulent misrepresentations regarding Remingtons
25 personally conducted tests (699); the stick test fraud by Gans experts, disavowal and cover-up (700);
26 Fraudulent misrepresentations of SHNs extensive testing on plaintiffs land, who did what, when, why
27 and who spiked the ground, if anyone (702-3); Gans little pile of dirt fraud, all 75 10-yard dump
28 truck loads (704); the February 2016 fraudulent concealment of all the asbestos pipes and Chrysotile
before Dr. McEdwards visit (705-6); The elaborate, creative testing location fraud on Mathsons land,
NOT the property complained about here, and their associated incompetent Blue Rock 2010 out-of-time
testing (706-7); The Gans perpetrated Mangini II ELECTION by plaintiff of continuing nuisance
fraud and deception of the court (707);The false chemical equivalency of diesel with asphalt (708);
Gans fraud related to Mathsons admitting liability for some of what they dumped there, but if not all,
1
who put the rest there 15-20 feet deep? (708-9); Gans major leaching and extraction fraud, which
2
continues today even after being repudiated at Aveggios deposition on July 1, 2011 (710); The Gans
3
fraud related to where contaminated water on Remingtons land has to originate, when only Mathsons
4
mountain could be the source (710); fraudulent concealment regarding the presence of asbestos,
5 Chrysotile and whether there is any there at all and if so whether 60% asbestos is hazardous (710-11);
6 The original creative 250-yard permit, actually a disposal agreement, to create a 4000-yard felonious
7 residential hazardous waste dump fraud (711); The Remingtons 2008 complaint was never verified
8 fraudulent misrepresentation (711); The numerous Gans perpetrated frauds in the Ninth Circuit such
9 as whether Remingtons 2012 Notice of Appeal was timely (712); the fraud related to Remington
10 being solely responsible for everything untoward in these cases (712); the multiple frauds of arguing
both sides of state dominance in the 2009-12 federal case (712-13); the identicality collateral estoppel
11
fraud of MIL #20, where Gans fraudulently compared federal state dependent claims to state claims, and
12
then misrepresented that the state claim ISSUES were identical to the federal statutorily claim
13
ISSUES, and then further grossly misrepresented, and LIED about which of those were necessarily
14
decided (713), as presented in the July RJN documents in this court; the Gans articulated fraud related to
15 who split Remingtons environmental claims, when and what significance that had (714); the fraudulent
16 deposition of Aveggio on federal issues and then using that grossly improper testimony AGAINST
17 plaintiff at Federal Summary Judgment, when he was not even admitted into the case and Remington
18 was barred from even mentioning him. Under case law cited in 2011, that later illicit act should have
19 been equivalent to a Rule 26 report, which would have kept him in the case for BOTH sides, and easily
20 led to a 2011 federal Summary Judgment in plaintiffs favor, because WE have the competent evidence
(715); In other words, Gans made multiple fraudulent representations regarding failure to meet and
21
confer, and had his own Rule 26 violations in August 2011, above, and regarding Schwartz, Ferriman
22
and Gwinn (716); the fraud regarding Gans invented great prejudice in August 2011, when after
23
deposing Aveggio twice for four hours he had 100% of his trial testimony (717); The MIL #20 fraud
24
pops-up in every new 2011 document investigation, such as in his 9/13/11 REPLY to plaintiffs 2011
25 Federal Summary Judgment Opposition, THERE, Gans argued the truth and EXACT OPPOSITE
26 position to his present stance and wrote: Obviously there are significant distinctions between
27 plaintiffs federal (statutory) claims and his state court trespass and nuisance claims (717). (emphasis
28 added). That statement proves Gans and Plotzs 2016-17 frauds on the state court, NOW being
attempted HERE, where defendants deceitfully argued the opposite in their convoluted MIL #20
documents, filed HERE in July, 2017 in ECF #39, RJN. The above concise statements are clear to Gans.
204. The multiple predicate acts alleged constituted a pattern of racketeering activity which injured
Remington and his property as alleged in detail in ECF #1, at pages 112-13 (1150, 1154, Volume II,
ID). Those injuries were a direct, proximate, reasonably foreseeable result of defendants violation of
1
18 USC 1962, in an amount to be determined at trial, trebled, pursuant to 18 USC 1964 (c).
2
THIRTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION, CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO,
3
18 USC 1962 (d), against all RICO defendants.
4
205. The above-cited RICO defendants have intentionally, unlawfully, and knowingly conspired
5 together and agreed to directly and indirectly conduct and to participate in the conduct, management or
6 operation of the affairs of this RICO enterprise, through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of
7 1962 (c), as described above, in violation of 18 USC 1962 (d); All that wrongful activity was
8 specifically intended to obstruct and distract Remington in all areas, while simultaneously defendants
9 deliberately conducted frivolous, harmful and aggressive litigatory actions against him for many years.
10 Additionally, it is already factually known that several of the defendants including Olson, Mathson and
Gans already used, invested, reinvested and therefore multiplied derivative illegal funds from illicit
11
laundered income, which were knowingly derived from a pattern of racketeering activity involving an
12
interstate enterprise (Allied Insurance and other interstate truckers and building material suppliers); and,
13
said enterprise acquired, maintained and subsequently enhanced their unethical and illegal interests in
14
and for the enterprise through a presently continuing pattern of racketeering activity, which exact
15 chronology, and precise financial details on all defendants will need to be developed during discovery.
16 Each RICO defendant knew about and agreed to facilitate the enterprises scheme to obtain property
17 from plaintiff, to otherwise ruthlessly and un-scrupulously destroy his property and financial stability,
18 and defeat him in his just lawsuit, which suit simply requests a cleanup of defendants dumped debris.
19 As a direct and proximate result of the 1962 (b) conspiracy and the overt harmful and illegal acts
20 conducted against Remingtons business and his business property, both were injured, as were his
reputation and goodwill, as described and according to proofs. All of the RICO defendants knew they
21
were engaged in a conspiracy against Remington and hence their conduct was purely intentional, under
22
1962 (c) & (d), and all are now responsible for Remingtons costs and time in defending against this
23
baseless and improperly motivated sham defense, where defendants have fully acknowledged liability.
24
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25
Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows on all causes of action, against all defendants:
26
1. For general, special, actual damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit according to proofs, with
27
application of the appropriate RENZ [Renz v. 33rd District Ag., 39 Cal. App. 4Th 63 (1995, 6th District)]
28 time frame which would reasonably calculate and add-up all damages through trial and all appeals;
2. On Causes of Action #29-30; general damages according to proof at trial trebled, according to
RICO, 18 USC 1964 (c),against all present an additional conspiring RICO defendants.
3. Plaintiffs attorneys fees, personal expert time expenditures at a minimum of paralegal rates,
expert, administrative, deposition, equipment, testing, office, purchasing and other appropriate costs;
4. On Causes 2-9 and 11-15, an injunction ordering defendants to clean up, remediate, repair and
1
mitigate against further contamination, flooding and leaning tree damage of plaintiffs property;
2
5. On Causes #1 and #10, Declaratory and/or Injunctive Relief, including drainage pipe as requested;
3
6. For a declaration that all defendants have violated and continue to be in violation of the CW A,
4
RCRA, CAA, SDWA, CERCLA, NESHAP, CWA, Californias continuing nuisance and trespass
5
statutes and the other numerous federal, state and County grading and excavation statutes cited above;
6 and, are therefore jointly and severally liable for the past, present and future costs to clean-up,
7 monitor, negotiate with agencies, remediate, detoxify and repair plaintiffs property. Most pertinent
8 would be for the court to order RCRA relief as described at 745-750 in ECF #1, Volume I, ID;
9 7. On Causes #4-7, order federal statutory civil penalties, including without limitation $100 per day
10 for CWA violations, and $500 per day for violations of RCRA 6972 (a) (1) (A), see also Volume I,
11 747, ID and CERCLA mandated costs and fees under 42 USC 9659 (f), 310.
8. For other equitable lawful relief, related to Causes of Action #17-28, including a preliminary and
12
permanent injunction that bars defendants or any of their presently involved law firms from further
13
intimidation, threatened frivolous extortive sanctions, threatened lawsuits for libel, defamation,
14
malicious or vexatious prosecution, harassment, coercion or any other anticipated retaliatory actions
15
in any court, until the Court determines the merits here and enters judgment on Remingtons claims;
16
9. For additional damages in an amount in excess of $300,000, according to proof, representing the
17 economic losses incurred by plaintiff alleged herein including costs for diminished market value or
18 long term stigma, loss of past, present and future Burl Tree income and business opportunities, LOST
19 past and present RENTS, multiple and massive property damages (per ECF #1, Volume I, RELIEF
20 REQUESTED, pages 265-278, ESPECIALLY 759-798), past and future investigative,
21 administrative and professional costs incurred, on-going or anticipated;

10. Indemnification from all County, state and federal future cleanup actions of either property;
22
11. For punitive and exemplary damages on causes #12, 13, 15, 17-25 & #27-28, as requested, where
23
appropriate, in an amount commensurate with the acts complained of, and in accordance with the
24
financial condition of each individual defendant, all according to detailed proofs at trial.
25
12. For such other relief as the court deems just and proper13.
26
Dated: August_______, 2017 BY: ____________________________
27
(50 text pages) Bruce Remington, in pro se
28
. If some element or allegation is missing here, please specify same and plaintiff will locate it
13
within ECF #1 and put it in this FAC, with a few more pages. Actual pages= 50, as word processor
program cannot start at zero for two cover pages, so text starts on page 3.

United States District Court Northern District of California

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

United States District Court Northern District of California

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case No: 17-cv-02007-JST 1 REMINGTONS FAC, August 2017

Bruce Remington, in pro se

Plaintiff, Bruce Remington, for causes of action, alleges:

21 administrative and professional costs incurred, on-going or anticipated;

Вам также может понравиться