Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I. Introduction:
2
A. Brief Background. Defendants buried about 2 million pounds of illegal contaminated,
3
ultra-hazardous wastes on Remingtons land in 1998. This RICO case is about the criminal
4
enterprise formed by Gans and his co-conspirator lawyers to force Remington to keep those
5
contaminated toxins, stop his lawsuits to remove them, and to shut-up, or suffer grave
6 consequences. Today, Gans RICO enterprise is most fundamentally an extortion protection
7 racket, under 18 USC 1951, which for years has violently, continuously and destructively
8 attacked Remingtons business property, large estate and gardens, and then Gans promised he
9 would call-off his soldiers and protect Remington from further damage if he gives up his
10 encroached land, contamination lawsuits and leaves the area.
11 Defendants have alleged that around 1998, RAO construction approached the Mathsons about
permanently storing millions of pounds of hazardous, contaminated gas station remedial, lead and
12
asbestos wastes on their property and adjacent to it, well into Remingtons redwood forest.
13
Defendants short-hauling scheme, as explained below, produced vast overall illicit and
14
UNJUST profits in the seven figures range. Accordingly, RAO located, illicitly contracted for,
15
hauled, dumped and then illegally buried about 4000 yd (400 10-yard dump loads) under
16 meticulous landscaping, in dense redwood forests on both beautiful residential properties.
17 Defendants admitted toxic, trespassing encroachment onto Remingtons land with more than
18 600 cubic yards of hazardous, toxic, buried and concealed unwanted materials was discovered by
19 Remington in 2006, and Remington filed suit in 2008 for removal by defendants insurance
20 company, under California and federal environmental contamination, trespass and nuisance laws,
21 which case continues here.
Although defendants legal defense has always been highly aggressive, VERY unethical and
22
an at least partially corrupt from its inception, it was not originally criminal in its scope and
23
implementation. The initial hazardous dumping crimes were illegal and violated many federal, state
24
and county environmental laws, John Mathson was even seen hastily leaving the scene of an arson
25
of Remingtons primary structure in 2008, plus there were other frequent acts of vandalism
26 attributed to RAO, Mathson and his local gang over the years, but those earlier incidents were
27 largely ignored and handled easily when Remington was younger and stronger. Nevertheless, in
28 retrospect, they formed a logical background for this federal RICO action.
20 members and employees and also personally used by Olson, Skillings and the Mathsons. False
financial statements and IRS filings were made accordingly, probably ever since 1998 or even
21
before that.
22
However, Remington did not become aware of this secret, concealed scheme, nor did he have
23
a reason to until his additional full investigations of the business aspects of defendants operations
24
during 2014, and subsequently.
25 Remington reasonably relied on all defendants statements and purported legal motions,
26 documents and activities from 2006-2012, but no longer does. Some of the defendants exhibited
27 malice, deceit and knowledge of their 1998 criminal acts, and related unethical coverups since
28
3
As to The city, it is the 1998 Public Works Director, Boyd Davis, which we are after, not the
present city attorney.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
7
2008, and Gans has now involved many of his witnesses intimately into the objectives of the
1
enterprise. Said Gans-Lawrence objectives and progressively more criminal activities, especially
2
since 2012, are fully explained in the 500 pages which follow.
3
The Burl Tree, Remingtons business, is Remington, no more or less. This litigation and
4
Remingtons reliance on its integrity and predictability, took all Remingtons time and reduced the
5 Burl Tree business to near zero in most years recently, and always sales of been under $5000 since
6 2006. Specific lost wholesale deals and land sale deals are listed elsewhere particularly in the 2014-
7 15 years, associated with Mick Jagger of Boulder, Colorado. Also any possible county or state park
8 use has now been ended until the contamination problem is alleviated. The biggest single damage
9 involves the 50-75,000,000 gallons of rainwater flowing down Remington Creek annually (or
10 MORE in 2016-17), which Remington could easily capture and pump up to Westgate for under
$50,000. Thats a $400,000 dollars per year lost sale for water hauled down into the Southern
11
Humboldt County area by water truck that has been lost.
12
The Burl Tree owns 832 Westgate Dr. and ALL the land which defendants ruined, and which
13
now they must remediate. The Burl Tree also owns all the property on the site including damaged
14
inventory inside and out, and all land and property damaged here both inside and outside is a Burl
15 Tree business loss. The Burl Tree now operates at least 99% in interstate commerce, so therefore
16 defendants racketeering enterprise damaged a business operating in interstate commerce and hence
17 RICO is enforceable here under federal law.
18 When the Burl Tree purchased 832 Westgate Dr. in 1980 and developed it with over $700,000
19 of improvements, that was all business assets, land, landscaping, fixtures, tools and a huge
20 inventory, and today there are very few individual assets stored here. Additionally, the Burl Tree
purchases most of its inventory, fixtures and supplies from out of state, and over the last 30 years
21
probably no more than 7% of its purchases were within California. THEREFORE, the $12,000 per
22
year rent since 1998 which defendants owe, is to the Burl Tree, not Remington personally. The Burl
23
Tree always operated about 90-95 % in interstate commerce and since 1998 it has been 100%.
24
Gans is the primary violator here under 1962 (c) but the other co-conspirators, however also
25 committed predicate acts personally, and are consequently jointly responsible for all Remingtons
26 damages, according to a subjective formula Remington has estimated and proposed later in this
27 statement, subject to Court scrutiny obviously.
28 G. Conclusions: Gans is a hybrid of Don Corleone and Tom Hagan, the crooked lawyer,
Consigliore, in the Godfather film. With Allieds billion-dollar backing, Gans is literally as
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
8
powerful as the Godfather and has major enforcers muscle in Skillings and John Mathson, both
1
cold, heartless, bold and psychopathic.
2
Consequently, after eight years of extortion, vandalism, arson, Burglary, threats and severe
3
intimidation by Gans, John Mathson and Skillings we have reached this point.
4
Rather than just go-away, Remington is doing the opposite: Recording all this, increasing
5 surveillance, more aware of danger is in the dark shadows and other personal safety safeguards,
6 pushing a criminal investigation centered on Olsen, Skillings, Madison and Kish Paul initially and
7 investigating all involved in terms of RICO.
8 Nevertheless, Remingtons life is now threatened and in danger. That has always been the risk
9 and price of facing organized crime, with its unlimited power and resources, and it still is. If
4
10 Remington is killed here, start with Skillings and then lock-up Gans until he confesses. Gans is
still believed to have at least one Eureka judge in his pocket, as Corleone did, and obviously it is
11
personally stupid to oppose such power and corruption, however Remington is just too proud,
12
bullheaded, idealistic (and perhaps foolish) to just go away, and still believes there is a possibility
13
of justice in California, if one has the 10-20 years to achieve it. Remington also still has very high
14
idealistic aspirations for his vast gardens and Gothic ornamented estate here, and hopes to donate it
15 or otherwise cause it to be used as some sort of county or state park in the intermediate term. That
16 would not be possible in its contaminated and un-indemnified present state.
17
18 II. RICO Case Statement Standing Order Form
19 (alleging substantial and direct monetary damages caused to Remingtons property in business).
20 1. State which section of 18 USC 1962 that defendants alleged unlawful contact violates.
The alleged RICO act criminal conspiracy is in violation of 18 USC 1962 (c) & (d). The
21
enterprise made huge profits and reinvested most or all of them in other real estate development,
22
construction and office equipment, etc. However, said reinvestment probably did not directly
23
damage plaintiff nor are sufficient details presently known to present a viable 1962 (a) or (b)
24
claim, but we reserve the right to do so after a couple years of discovery. The causes of action in the
25
26 4
Skillings is the Luca Brassi (the Godfathers sensitive but psychopathic hit-man) of our story, Remington fears.
Skillings is a cold, ruthless, potential assassin-type. During and after his SOL cross- examination in 2016, where
27 Judge Reinholtsen refused to admit or allow the use of 2003 photos proving absolutely that Skillings was lying,
which both Gans and Remington well-knew, Skillings glared at Remington. Not just an ordinary stare, but as he left
28 the courtroom walking only 5 feet from Remington his eyes clearly and very unmistakably said: Keep this up
Remingtonand Ill kill you next time, and Remington doesnt intimidate that easily, unlike the rest of his warm
and sensitive family, which are now successfully extorted and intimidated, as per below.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
9
complaint list section (d) as a separate violation, but based on conspiracies involving the (c)
1
violations.
2
2. List each defendant and state the alleged misconduct and basis of liability of each
3
defendant:
4
A. Russell Gans, Esq. (next 84 pages)
5
(1) Early Introduction, from 6 months ago and now of only general relevance, as noted
6
BELOW. Gans is the primary conspirator, organizer, ringleader and acting godfather of their
7
criminal enterprise of over 40 people, but law partners Brisso and Plotz provide daily substantial
8
support of at least several hours per day.
9
(2) The following 74-pages summarize some of Gans presently known DIRECT
10 involvements in all, at least, 18-types of federal predicate acts, which emphasize extortion and
11 were mostly carried-out in direct criminal collusion with John Mathson, (his Westgate gang) and
12 Kyle Skillings, who Both take orders from Gans, and John Mathson literally does nothing on his
13 own initiative without clearance from Godfather Gans, as he behaves like a ventriloquists
14 dummy. [SEE ALSO PAGES 532-553 of Remingtons RICO statement, below, for 20 more
15 pages of MOSTLY GANS unethical and quasi-illegal litigation activity.]
It is very likely that these lists will greatly expand in types of crimes and specific instances of
16
same as further work, research and recall occurs here, PLUS written and oral discovery during
17
2017-18, will greatly multiply the number of predicate acts within the 18 categories, so far
18
determined. That last prophetic statement written about six months ago has already been expanded
19
with respect to Gans to include his personal involvement in all of the so-four named predicate acts
20 listed at pages 4-5 of Remingtons RICO statement, in Volume II.
21 Further and very significantly, when the first RICO enterprise member cracks and decides to
22 tell the truth to save themselves, there is no doubt that additional specific types and individual
23 incidents of said above 18 categories of federal predicate acts will be discovered, proven and
24 encompassed in the FAC, in a year or so. Also, around that time Remington will automatically
25 update and probably condense the RICO statement somewhat, when time permits.
(3) After the short summary of some of the major categories of Gans initially discovered, 6-
26
months ago, federal predicate acts (which follows next), we will cover some of the major categories
27
specifically, with all required fraud SPECIFICITY, as follows: Extortion, bribery, mail fraud, wire
28
10 Paying (or bribing) a state court file room employee to repetitively separate, unbind, scatter
and misplace Remingtons lengthy documents and lose them, or not timely deliver them to the court
11
for hearings. That still happens today about 20% of the time when Remington files State
12
documents, which is about 20 times in 100 major filings which average 250 pages each and were up
13
to 2000 pages; Gans also personally visited the dump site, based on 2016 surveillance videos, to
14
tamper with evidence (personally and to supervise his soldiers); Gans suborned perjury in at least
15 five (5) of his August 2016 trial witnesses and retaliated against Remingtons star witness
16 remediation expert Figas, Mike Foget, Remington and others; As contained in more than 1000
17 pages of federal and state filings, Gans filed multiple false declarations, plus fraudulent,
18 deceptive, mischaracterized false expert declarations, knowingly inaccurate and replete with
19 multiple gross misstatements (on every page) in numerous federal motion documents, from about
20 2010-2014, and many were repeated in his 2016 MILs. Generally speaking, the enterprise
defendants are almost entirely misleading and unethical in all of their written documents, and said
21
documents also misstate or conceal at least the majority of the material case facts and issues,
22
which would be required for an honest representation by defendants, if anyone were evaluating
23
them aside from Remington.
24
SEE Sections X-Y, around pages 82-88 below, for MORE Gans transgressions, ethical
25 violations and specific California statutes violated, some of his earliest perjuries, FRAUDS on
26 Remington and the state AND Federal Court (in CV 09 4547 NJV) which were precursors to
27
28 5
All of this section has obviously been totally superseded by the by the subsequent 550 or more pages that
were drafted over the next six months to more fully characterize Gan role as leader of this RICO
enterprise.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
11
federal crimes, and are mostly but all less serious than the federal predicate acts outlined in the
1
next 70+ pages.
2
All the details of Gans individual state and federal crimes plus those directly carried out by
3
his soldiers under his direct supervision and CONTROL, are covered in detail in the following
4
sections.
5 6. 18. 42 USC 102, ARSON. Allegedly perpetuated by John Mathson in September 2008, as
6 discussed herein, based-on his known enmity and presence at the scene, easy access to the crime
7 area through his secret door, two witnesses and the other evidence cited. Mathson is a puppet
8 who ONLY acts under Gans orders, and here there was strong incentive to terminate Remington
9 and his defenses early-on, as said arson occurred in the last few days before a giant Special
10 Motion and litigation privilege defense by Remington requiring a month of full-time research.
Likely, there is nothing significantly better than starting a giant fire which almost burns your
11
adversaries OFFICES and PERSON TO DEATH, to obstruct a motion Opposition, which
12
defendants motion was also frivolous but did require a massive Remington Opposition under the
13
circumstances and unfamiliarity of the topic.
14
WORSE and more damaging than that fire overall was the 500+ hours thereafter wasted
15 because of the REAL FEAR of a repeat at any time, 24-7, 365/year, damaging Remington as
16 below, and because it has since required him to HAVE to record daily, on remote hard-drives and
17 Cruzer chips, for 8 years every 10-100 pages drafted in these cases, usually at 1-2 day intervals,
18 which amounted to THOUSANDS of onerous saves of up to 500 drafts of major documents, such
19 as THIS ONE, in to avoid 5-20 hours of hard thought, legal and word-processing work being lost in
20 the next arson attempt or success, likely while Remington is away from his offices.
That real, RATIONAL fear is just more EXTORTION, but is listed here separately for
21
emphasis and to incriminate Gans, Mathson or Skillings when it occurs NEXT.
22
7. OTHER Gans serious, actionable transgressions, generally, include, without limitation:
23
Major, severe witness tampering (on the key, crucial, most material issue of the SOL trial),
24
coaching, coercion and retaliating against Remingtons witnesses; the Obstruction of law-
25 enforcement in conducting a quasi-illegal MAJOR gambling business6, in the sense that all
26 6
As explained elsewhere, Gans alleged RICO racketeering enterprise exactly meets the definition of an
27 illegal gambling business, at 18 USC 1511 (b) (i-iii), in that: (I) It was a violation of the law of the state
and political subdivision in which it was conducted; (ii) it involved (s) five or more persons who conducted,
28 financed, managed, supervised, directed, or owned all or part of such business; and (iii) it has been, and
remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of 30 days or has (had) a gross revenue of
$2000 in any single day. The RAO- Mathson original crimes easily met those criteria from 1998-2006, and
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
12
defendants roll the dice on whether Mathsons' dump would be discovered or remain concealed, or
1
not and also whether major civil or criminal charges would be filed or not; money laundering
2
subject to future discovery; buying and selling real estate with laundered money; the 2015-16
3
improper hauling, permitting and placarding of hazardous wastes; miscellaneous actionable
4
deprivations of Remingtons rights (See Section Y. about pages 83-86, for MANY more); and the
5 selling of controlled substances by the enterprise.
6 All of these above federal violations will be covered specifically and chronologically in turn
7 below, in considerable and painful detail, including time, place, circumstances and participants.
8
1. EXTORTION (FIRST) AND THEN A SUMMARY OF OTHER FEDERAL PREDICATE
9
ACTS BY GANS HIMSELF AND COMMITTED UNDER HIS DIRECT ORDERS.
10
A. Background: In 2007-9, there were early precursors to this RICO action, upsetting
11
Remington because they were overly aggressive, unethical advocacy, but apparently only
12
California ethical violations that no one in the California Superior Courts seemed especially
13
concerned with. That was LONG before any pattern or racketeering enterprise was noticeably
14
formed. THIS section originally drafted in fall 2016 was augmented in February 2017, as section X
15
and Y. below, as these more minor 50-70 serious ethical violations, FRAUDS on Remington and
16
the court, deceptions of jury and THREE judges in both state and federal court, seemed to become
17
more relevant to put this RICO suit in perspective, even if said above 50-70 violations of Gans
18
oaths, moral code and ethics might not be imprisonable predicate acts, still they are BAD and this
19
court should be aware of EVERYTHING going-on here, for years.
20
1) Beginning in 2008, Gans and Brisso of the Mitchell firm embezzled funds from their financier
21
Allied Insurance, grossly inflated costs to them and then to Remington when he was billed for
22
swindled costs already paid by Allied. In those 2008-9 special motion fee hearings the Mitchell firm
23
burglarized, over-billed and attempted to extort Remington by more than $9000, but failed in that
24
attorney white collar robbery of Remington, when Judge Miles believed Remington briefly and
25
long enough to follow his 20-30 pages of proofs which implicated Brisso and Gans; 2) Also in
26
September 2008, John Mathson is strongly suspected (and seen nearby) in the actual, serious arson
27
fire at Rs 5000 square foot residence under construction, while Remington was simultaneously
28
defending against defendants Special Motion and 40 organizational complaints, discussed
Gans enterprise has easily met them since then, and from 2012-2016.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
13
1 elsewhere, but 3) in any case; summer 2011, 4) serious defendants experts declaration perjuries
2 and errors in all their expert FEDERAL and STATE reports related to encroaching volume, toxicity,
3 but not yet formalized as perjury at any trial; 5) John Mathsons vandalism pattern was established
4 in 2008, but was in its infancy, and easier to contain then, compared to organized, systematic
5 attacks in 2012 and ON to the present, facilitated by his two different secret doors described
6 herein; 6) also early threats, anger, extortions and attempts to break Remingtons spirit and that of
7 his experts occurred as early as 2008-11, but not as serious predicate acts then; 7) The Mathsons
8 poured, spread and otherwise allowed untreated feces, urea and associated diseased bacteria and
9 viruses to flow down onto Remingtons land from their unpermitted, but expensively BUILT
10 (anyway) illegal septic system since about 2005, again hardly a felonious federal crime, although a
11 very serious and potentially deadly health threat to Remington and the community, almost
12 KILLING Remington several times already.
13 AGAIN, see the 50-70 GANS prequels to and simultaneous corrupt, improper, illegal,
14 wrongful, ETC federal precursor predicate acts, at Section Y below, which Gans committed
15 between about late 2011-2017, all REPEATED in state and federal documents during the past 4
16 years, which although not necessarily arising to RICO acts, still set the tone, pattern and are ALL
17 BAD and consistent with the FEDERAL and state CRIMES alleged.
18 B. In 2012, Defendants RICO pattern of discrete federal predicate acts began, and
19 continued open-ended continuity, through today, in November 2016 (in approximate
20 chronological order):
21 1. Attempted Extortion by 100+ acts of Mathson-Skillings felony vandalism and burglary
22 over many years. [Recall that all of these proven criminal acts by Gans RICO soldiers, for
23 which we have evidentiary proofs, were carried out under Gans direct orders and with his
24 direct knowledge and supervision].
25 John Mathsons Burglaries of burl, iron, mill and agricultural machinery, tools, supplies
26 and equipment, PLUS his serial vandalisms of Remingtons mile long perimeter fences, nursery
27 plants, ALL Rs major gardens, miles of irrigation lines and dozen pumps, and Mathsons personal
28 leadership of his documented, tame and trained deer armies, VIOLATE 1951, the Hobbs Act.
Since Remington has not YET surrendered his encroached land or dropped his lawsuits, the
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
14
1 defendants crime of EXTORTION is not legally complete and prosecutable, however,
2 ATTEMPTED Extortion, under PC 518 with wobbler sentencing prescribed under CALCRIM 1830,
3 et seq, 1A, and PC 524, IS complete. Gans and Mathson have unlawfully ruined, destroyed and
4 VANDALIZED Remingtons property for years and have threatened to and actually CONTINUED
5 to do that vandalism throughout 2016. The damaging crimes continue and all future and daily threat
6 remains, implicitly until Remington renounces all lawful attempts to cleanup and recover his ruined
7 and encroached upon land, now HELD by Mathson and Gans.
8 We now understand in February 2017, that Gans, Mathson and all of the RICO conspirators
9 have violated numerous other California Penal Code sections which will be pursued to the full
10 extent of Remingtons energies if this federal RICO case stalls for some reason. Some of those
11 numerous penal code violations which were recently uncovered in about 15 minutes include
12 without limitation: PC 186-186.8; PC 518-19; PC 67-8; PC 92-93; and PC 137-8.
13 By November 2012, John Mathsons extortion pattern had increased in magnitude and
14 frequency to at least once a week and have continued at that level since then. See Remingtons
15 documentations by date, location and severity, from about 2008, and in detail from 2012 to present.
16 Recent 2016 video, from increased surveillance cameras, prove Mathson is letting deer, bear,
17 humans and other detrimental animals and forces into and through Remingtons fortress-like
18 security systems, and virtually impenetrable fences (without destructive vandalism) almost daily,
19 since becoming re-emboldened in August 2016, terrorizing Remingtons family, grandkids and
20 causing the extensive economic destruction to the numerous types of delicate Burl Tree property
21 present and the other HUGE damages cited, according to proofs.
22 As part of that coercive intimidation and worse, Remingtons parked pick-up truck has been
23 repeatedly vandalized and sabotaged in his driveway (as the Mathsons have called it ugly and part
24 of a junk yard) and also his basic transportation car has been tampered with in the public street in
25 front of the house;
26 THOSE documented and photographed criminal racketeering acts by Gans soldiers,
27 Mathson, Skillings and Kishpaugh especially are the enterprises primary extortion scheme to
28 DRIVE Remington from his land, harm that land and development, and destroy the Burl Trees
10 now, and presumably that Remington is still fighting obstinately with determination, babbling
about justice and related scientifically technical matters, which she has never seen and obviously
11
does not even understand.
12
In any case, whatever her views are or their basis, she has involved herself very deeply in
13
these litigations for many years, has read most of the same documents that Remington is read, and
14
therefore knows all about Gans criminal enterprise, or she should know. In other words, she now
15 has the obvious criminal intent to crush Remington in terms of the Enterprises stated
16 objectives, and it is her that controls Gans fraudulent defensive strategy, and it is her alone that has
17 the power to end all this instantly, or continue it forever. She finances every multiple perjury,
18 artifice and tricky, creative criminal scheme that Gans conceives, and therefore clearly assists Gans
19 in setting and achieving all the evil, unethical and unlawful objectives of this enterprise, that it is
20 sworn to accomplish. Written and oral discovery will be needed to determine exactly whose evil
and corrupt motives and plans control and make this enterprise function efficiently, HERS, Gans
21
or someone elses.
22
Remington knows, understands and has been involved with Gans detailed explanations,
23
detailed time sheets and justifications for his every act, all day every day in 10-15 minute
24
increments of time, plus his expenses, to the penny. He does that in order to get paid the hundreds
25 of thousands of dollars for his time he has accumulated. After the 10-15 years Lawrence and Gans
26 appear to have worked together, Remington has seen that he can put down just about anything and
27 get paid for it ONCE, if not twice, as per many examples of double billing, from 2009. Remington
28 even complained of some of that to Lawrence then, but she undoubtedly ignored Remington as
some kind of an angry and unreliable, bitter kook, and thereafter she let Gans continue to get away
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
95
with financial reimbursement murder these last seven years presumably. An irresponsible
1
employee that writes checks for a billionaire has no scruples or concern for how the money is spent,
2
not spent as requested and if the billionaires money is often reimbursed, or paid to Gans, for many
3
expenses which should not have been charged to Lawrence at all, who cares? They have plenty of
4
money, too much money and as long as that unlimited money is funneled from Lawrence to Gans
5 for any corrupt RICO protective racket that he requests, justice cannot be served here. Hence, this
6 RICO action became necessary in federal court, or state court if it fails here for some reason.
7 In 2009, Remington proved that Allied was being defrauded by the Mitchell firms padded
8 bills, inflated statements of ours, hundreds of dollars of charges for motions (for which the county
9 charge nothing, such as disqualification motions and many others), and double billing, i.e. charging
10 twice for the same hours work and billing Allied (and then Remington on top of that) for personal
time and/or work on other cases. All of that was fully documented with respect to the Mitchell
11
firms $12,000-$15,000 build to Remington in their first special motion fee billings, which due to
12
Remingtons analyses and proofs of fraud were reduced by judge Marilyn Miles to about $4500.
13
Irritatingly, it is obvious to Remington that Gans gets paid and reimbursed for anything that
14
he deceitfully writes down on a piece of paper, whereas Remington gets nothing, no matter how
15 justified his demands or needs may be.
16 In other words, every single corrupt racketeering enterprises act by Gans, as explained
17 throughout these documents, has by necessity been fully explained to, reported to in writing and
18 justified to Linda Lawrence of Allied insurance, The Big Boss here, that pays all the bills as
19 explained in Gans likely more self-serving words.
20 To Remington, Allied is ultimately, legally, morally and really responsible for what their
agent Gans does and also Lawrence is deeply enough involved in the detail of the above soldiers
21
illegal acts to be fully responsible and very intentionally implicated here. Implicated here, as in
22
prison time. In a just fantasy world she would share her jail cell with Gans for a few years,
23
while they talked about how they screwed Remington good for a while. Undoubtedly Allied and
24
Lawrence will have dozens of insurance related loopholes and escape clauses, however Remington
25 does not believe that they are innocent victims of Gans and Mathsons' frauds and criminal acts, as
26 Lawrence is inherently part of the highest command structure of the enterprise, and very arguably
27 is the single highest level of all. If that turns out to be true, after written and oral discovery, and
28 after several witnesses such as Plotz turn states evidence to the DA, then Lawrence could be in big
trouble here. Similarly, no prudent insurance organization could condone the criminal activities
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
96
propagated by Gans, Lawrence and the rest of the named RICO defendants, and therefore they
1
should not be implicated in this enterprise, are likely not guilty of criminality here, or the
2
commission of any predicate acts, and hence they are not presently named.
3
In any case, it is a fact that Linda Lawrence, or obviously whoever else has replaced her, if
4
that has occurred, fully controls the enterprise 100% because it thrives only on huge sums of money
5 and not because it has a just basis and purpose. If she stopped funding it, Gans RICO enterprise
6 would die a very sudden and very painful death in several days, because only 2-3 members would
7 continue-on battling, tormenting and destroying Remingtons property, just for the fun of it, and
8 without Gans providing legal cover they would wind up in jail within a couple of weeks. Mathson
9 and some of his gang buddies attack and damage Remington merely for the sport of it, mostly free
10 of charge, however Mathsons recent $20,000 elicit payday from the Farmers extortion described
herein, is still being worked-off in effect.
11
Until someone at Allied who is older and wiser, or until one or more RICO gang members
12
decide to expose their leadership, to avoid prison for themselves, and to tell the truth about some of
13
this, Lawrence is named as a very, VERY prominent RICO defendant, second only in importance
14
to Gans, but whether shes second anyone is open to debate.
15 Although Remington alleges above that Gans is the true Godfather of this enterprise and that
16 Allieds manager Lawrence probably (or at least maybe) has not been instructed on all the ruthless
17 corrupt suborning of perjury that Gans systematically and meticulously coached into his witnesses;
18 and, although Lawrence may not know everything here, she obviously knows enough.
19 Enough for what, will now be up to a federal judge, jury, local criminal investigators and in
6 document, on March 5, 2017 when Remington approached his front gate he noticed that someone,
7 presumably John Mathson had pushed various vertical supports out of place, broke some
supporting wires and opened-up a gap again at the gate just enough for a gigantic deer to easily
8
squeeze through, very similarly to whats in the above paragraphs. Remington went into the house
9
got wire, pliers and wire cutters, etc. and repaired the area very thoroughly to a much higher level
10
than it had been so that not even a cat could squeeze through anywhere there. But, when
11
Remington got to work Monday, March 6, 2017, something which would have had to have human
12 hands and an evil intent head again violently shook the right support says looked at from the
13 outside until they weekend and produced new gaps in the same area as the day before. This time
14 Remington just pushed everything back into proper position and supported it, however a human
15 saboteur with the strength of a 220-pound man can shake, weaken and break supports and did so
16 here. The next day that it happens Remington will reinforce it much further to show Mathson that
17 he is aware of what he is attempting to do and exactly where he is doing it.
What is totally clear is that Mathsons guilty and hasty flight in 2012, indicated strongly
18
that Plaintiff arrived just in time to avoid whatever insidious mischief Mathson was actually doing
19 when he was caught! In 2017 there was no such hundred thousand dollar machine sitting 20 feet
20 away, so it was probably a predicate act of attempted arson, whereas the 2017 vandalism and
21 malicious mischief was more benign, but is a continuation of the Enterprises extortive campaign to
22 make Remington an offer to leave this land and abandon it to the Mathsons, which at some point
23 you will not be able to refuse, because hes too weak and old to battle the enterprise from a
24 sickbed.
Well learn much more about Mathsons excuses for all of the above events plus at least 100
25 others which are completely documented with photographs, at his next deposition. When he begins
26 to lie about all of them, eventually we will trip him up with impeachment surveillance video.
27 Inferentially, John Mathson was either getting ready to trespass, or perhaps had just
28 completed a trespass, either through Plaintiffs unlocked gate or was caught in the act of removing
the attached ends of fences from the concreted gate posts, which had been disturbed, and where he
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
124
had sabotaged them previously in 2011, at that an exact spot, once reinforced further, making
1
another break-in obviously by HUMAN tools. Mathson historically had previously cut and also
2
unraveled Remingtons security fences in that same area (and also 10 farther away in another
3
year), immediately on either side of Plaintiffs often locked main gate where some of the multiple
4
bear-proof fences are somewhat weaker, because they are reinforced (but also obscured) by a thick
5 20 tall hedge, such that holes made by Mathson for unauthorized entry are difficult to notice, see
6 or find, and are thus generally unexpected, until now. Mathson has also sabotaged Plaintiffs mile
7 long fence in at least 100 other specific places, times and manners as documented and which will
8 be painfully developed at the trial for emotional and punitive damages, to see Mathsons attempted
9 innocent looking perjured reactions, to buttress our other aforementioned Deposition perjury
10 proofs involving witnesses. Perhaps a jury will interpret John Mathsons continuous efforts to
drive plaintiff from his property, which he CANNOT now leave, when his property is actually now
11
already rendered unsalable due to Mathsons contamination, negatively and unsympathetically.
12
Continuing as to the 2012 incident, more serious, that SAME November 23d night, and in
13
association with RAOs believed sponsored almost simultaneous, serious intimidating
14
THREATS against Figas and his equipment, by Kyle Skillings in 2011, discussed above, Mathson
15 is believed to have been interrupted from personally attempting to vandalize, arson (and/or
16 study in the dark) the 85,000# contractors excavator parked only 20 inside that very gate.
17 Perhaps he was scouting the vulnerabilities of the excavator, planning or even beginning to
18 EXECUTE a vandalism and analyzing our then non-existent and also historically mostly
19 unnecessary (until NOW) human security measures (since enhanced) in advance for Skillings
20 and/or other unknown RAO employees now expected to do Mathsons mechanical dirty work
21 involving the slightly more sophisticated art of effective, meaningful equipment vandalism and
arson, as opposed to Mathsons specialty of fence vandalism. [The section was originally written in
22
2014, and has been updated several times especially in 2016 to March 2017, and overall it is
23
undoubtably redundant and repetitive but too late now to do a major revision couple days before
24
filing this.]
25
On the above 2012 night, Defendants could have intended to start-up Figas excavator to
26
do untold damages, such as knocking down Plaintiffs entire house in minutes, or arson, all of
27 which criminal acts would be trivial for a knowledgeable owner/operator to accomplish, which is
28 presumably the main reason why Figas justifiably very abruptly pulled his machine off the job,
10 was clearly the product of this overall extortion racket enterprise promulgated by Gans and now
sued here under RICO. In fact that $20,000 was the first major prize won by Gans RICO
11
enterprise, in mustve been a source of great pride. Gans visual nuisance, irritation, super-trivial
12
trespass and pollution suit against Remington was very frivolous from the start, a real laugher all
13
along (objectively), and eventually Gans ill-gotten $20,000 dollars in this improper extortion/
14
bribery/settlement is about what defendants probably spent prosecuting that ridiculous DR080669
15 case to that point.
16 Obviously, there are two sides to that issue, and well get another side from Gans no doubt, but
17 meanwhile this odd, minor incident is only 1/1000th of Remingtons RICO case, but it is raised
18 nevertheless for court consideration whether characterized as a settlement, impermissible mention
19 of insurance, our something else. Remington believes that the $20,000 was also corruptly
20 extorted from Farmers, but it could also be construed as bribery, which is how Remington might
look at it.
21
22 Essentially, as explained with more clarity and detail above, Gans bribed Farmers to get out of
23 the case, to force Harvey Roberts to stop helping Remington, and as a result to tremendously
24 weaken Remingtons overall trial offensive contamination cases. All of that worked great for both
25 insurance companies but was very detrimental to Remingtons overall interest here.
26 11. 18 USC 1957. Specifically bars property sales and other purchases with laundered
27 dirty money. The Mathsons' specifically violated this federal law and are now subject to heavy
28 fines and imprisonment, based on their illicit 1999 major home renovations and expansions which
used exclusively laundered money from there illegal 1998 residential Class One dump site. The
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
129
1 Mathsons and RAO made huge unjust profits from that criminal dump site, which the RICO
2 enterprise is now desperately trying to conceal and cover-up.
3 State discovery and trials have begun to expose part of the Mathsons $20-$50,000 1999 home
4 expansion and construction of a gigantic 5-10 car garage, that practically touches Remingtons land.
5 The 2016 SOL trial featured many photographs of that project but this case will involve the
6 financial details and prove that project was built with unjust riches and laundered money from
7 the hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal payments by many illicit Humboldt County truckers
8 (such as Joe Costas major trucking firm). Said truckers violated dozens of hauling, dumping and
9 permanent disposal laws by dumping every type of local hazardous and contaminated material in
10 the Mathsons' dump for which Mathson and RAO were well-paid.
11 Arguably, under most applicable RICO law, the money the Mathsons spent in 1999 is barred by
12 the applicable SOLs and therefore their 1999 massive home expansions are not predicate acts here
13 in 2012-16. However, The Mathsons' kept spending substantial money on their yard every year
14 throughout the relevant periods.
15 They are constantly using that old laundered money for expansions, gigantic new fences, riding
16 lawnmowers, remodeling, re-seeding, irrigation, huge garden expansions, many new lawn buildings
17 and for making their basic mortgage payments into the relevant 2012-2016 period.
18 Discovery will reveal the exact financial details, however to the extent that the Mathsons' did
19 the above, and used old or new racketeering enterprises money to purchase or finance real estate
20 and then to payoff whatever loans they prove to have now, they massively still violated RICO and
21 specifically the above 1957, as a predicate act.
22 This is not a predicate act that is required here, but just another smaller predicate act, perhaps
23 Number 25 or 30, nevertheless. We have a lot more detail on all of this now, however in the
24 interests of some semblance of brevity, Remington will save it for later forums, where it can all be
25 12. 18 USC 1961-4, et seq. Additional money laundering statutes barring illegal profits from
26 being invested in businesses. This is an area which will be emphasized during future discovery and
27 Remington has numerous questions. For example, did the Mathsons' invest in any of RAOs major
28 Real estate developments in subdivisions along Walnut and throughout Cutten?
17 cases and specifically in this enterprise for many years. Since extensive discovery is needed from
Brisso and an early comprehensive deposition would be a good start, Remington will save most
18
specifics and violations of federal crimes for his future FAC. Throughout these documents,
19
Remington has alleged that Brisso somehow very improperly influenced and/or bribed Melissa
20
Martel as related to Eskos weird appearance and illogical report, unsolicitedly exonerating the
21
Mathsons, based only on Blue Rocks fraudulent data, with no rebuttal; Brisso appears to have also
22 grossly and improperly influenced Judge Reinholtsen, perhaps and inferentially by offering him
23 permanent part-time employment as he wishes, after his imminent retirement or likely or at least
24 justifiable removal from the Superior Court bench, for committing multiple financial frauds against
25 the state, even if readily understandable or even almost justifiable.
26 Nevertheless, for a judge, a felony is a felony and if Remington signed false affidavits in that
27 same manner in exchange for money, he would expect to be in prison by now. Obviously, The
justice system in California is very uneven and dependent upon a persons situation, influence,
28
importance and other intangibles, such as being in Pro per is very anathema to achieving justice,
certainly have settled, been tried, or in any case been fully resolved many years ago. Many years
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
177
ago likely wouldve been prior to 2012 when Gans became so desperate that he had to create this
1
corrupt racketeering enterprise to win using criminal methods, because on the honest encroachment
2
facts defendants must lose.
3
Similarly to Plotz, Brisso is and has been a long-time semi-corrupt figure here, unlike
4
Delaney and Vrieze who have not showed-up yet, or Kloppell whose scattered administrative
5 appearances have been inconsequential, to date, however he has written some corrupt, inaccurate
6 substantive documents. Brisso is older, wiser and probably more confident as a trial attorney than
7 anyone else at the Mitchell firm, however he has proven to be as corrupt as Gans when it comes to
8 falsely inflating his attorney fees in order to extort and injure Remington further.
9 Remington has also received reliable information, from three of his most important expert
10 witnesses, that Brisso has great influence throughout the County Counsels office which probably
includes the district attorney. Remington will be personally and very directly seeking conclusive
11
confirmation or rejection evidence regarding that allegation one way or the other, within 10-days
12
after this document is filed.
13
Brisso's name was everywhere here in 2008-10, when he made false, fraudulent attorney fee
14
requests, double-billed Remington for odd-motion charges and other non-special motion work, etc.
15 Judge Miles and Remington caught him in the act, and his attorney fee requests were reduced about
16 75 to 90% of where he was going with his fees, charging Remington more and more for every fee
17 hearing and every opposition, where he was merely explaining why his work was not fraudulent.
18 Remington should have received attorney fees for his work opposing Brisso, but received nothing
19 except lost Burl Tree profits.
20 Brisso also participated in the federal case which work has been thoroughly discredited in
recent years, where he among other things argued that the state cases were central and that there
21
should be no federal case at all. Then, when that failed and the federal case went his way
22
substantially, he reversed his position 180 and argued the opposite: The federal case predominates
23
and now all Remington state causes should be eliminated under collateral estoppel, a reversal a
24
position which has not and will not prevail. Many other examples exist but Brisso's early 2009
25 errors, and attempted frauds are not involved in this RICO case because they preceded the statute of
26 limitations here.
27 More relevant and timely here is Brisso's inferred bribery or obvious and fully known
28 other improper influence with Melissa Martel, Director of the County of Humboldts Department
of Environmental Health, probably through LAFCo, and related channels according to one
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
178
knowledgeable expert highly knowledgeable and accessible to the higher levels of humbled County
1
government, for many years. Whether through some LAFCo influence, bribery, subtle quid pro
2
quo or something else we will discover, Brisso somehow arranged to get Esko importantly and then
3
dominantly into the case as related to an irrelevant piece of property which is not material to
4
Remington's pollution allegations.
5 Discovery will be needed to determine the exact dates and extent of Brissos involvement
6 with Esko, however it occurred at least in the years 2011-2012 and related improper influence and
7 witness tampering allegations regarding Ms. Hoyos, and all County Health Department employees,
8 have been made herein, which occurred entirely in 2016.
9 Brisso IS a very close and long time confidant of Judge Reinholtsen, as they were closely
10 associated law partners with friendly personal interactions and social relationships for many years,
as explained above.
11
Brisso was a very close confidant of Judge Reinholtsen when they were law partners with
12
adjacent offices, for something over 20 years. During that long formative period, deep, personal
13
friendships were developed, as their families interacted socially, for many years. None of that
14
closeness, reciprocity, loyalty and trust appear to have been forgotten, exceeded or replaced by
15 better friendships, today. Neither has the great respect, which the county counsels office developed
16 for Brisso, when he has headed that office several times, inferentially subsided in any noticeable
17 degree, and clearly has not been lost.
18 In 2012-14, Brisso was believed to have bribed, extorted or otherwise improperly influenced
19 the Humboldt County Health Department, as above and has also made it nearly impossible to get
20 Maje Hoyos to testify in Remington's case. Brisso eventually allowed her deposition by Gans with
no problems, but now that he has seen how damning her testimony is, he has manipulated the
21
county counsel's office to bar her testimony except after Remington jumps through extraordinary
22
hoops.
23
Brisso seems to be the acting city and county council for many cities and entities around the
24
north coast and so therefore today he is also protecting the city of Eureka, as best he possibly can
25 from Remington and his serious asbestos allegations. Boyd Davis who was the Director of
26 Public Works for the city of Eureka in 1998 saved them considerable money by dealing with RAOs
27 criminal hauling and contaminated dumping operation, and now Brisso is one of their main
28 defenders, along with a dozen others named herein. Although Olson in 1998 had already violated
many state and local hauling and dumping laws and regulations in the 1990s, that was long before
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
179
the cover-up and related criminal acts began in this 2012 to the present by this Gans Rico
1
enterprise.
2
Brisso carries a lot of influence with Judge Reinholtsen, as we have repetitively discussed
3
here and whenever he advocated for anything in the courtroom during pretrial proceedings such as
4
collateral estoppel issues, the room went quiet, and almost hushed with the utmost respect among
5 all attorneys and courtroom spectators, when he appeared; and, Judge Reinholtsen appeared to be
6 especially attentive and impressed, much to Remington chagrin as he already wrote above. As
7 alleged, inferentially Judge Reinholtsen has been promised his old office back at the Mitchell firm
8 beginning very soon, and that appears to have biased Judge Reinholtsen in this case, in Remingtons
9 present opinion. No discovery has yet confirmed that, nor is it likely to ever prove that until said
10 judge actually takes a part-time position with the Mitchell firm in a couple of years, as expected. At
that time we will reconsider and reintroduce these allegations in an appropriate manner, as or if
11
required, and meanwhile they are speculative, unproven factually, but very plausible to Remington
12
and his trial team, such as it is, as based on hundreds of facts. Additionally, Judge Reinholtsen
13
swore in his opposition to Remingtons disqualification motion that he was not biased, not bribed
14
by Brisso and not improperly influenced by the promise of a job after his retirement, so for now that
15 declaration needs to be respected.
16 So again, these inferential allegations have not yet been proven in fact, but we are working
17 on it.
18 Brisso is not as overtly demonic as Gans yet in his public activities, but is definitely an
19 influential member of the racketeering syndicate behind-the-scenes and discovery may prove him to
20 be the chairman of the board.
Substantial discovery is now needed, and in progress on Brisso, before he can be absolutely
21
and conclusively tied-into any specific individual federal predicate acts; however, he is believed to
22
have communicated and collaborated with Gans on all of the above felonies. It is clear that he
23
knew about most of them, or obviously should have known, because he is the sharpest, most
24
circumspect and potentially most corruptly devious enterprise member named herein. If Brisso
25 knew about Gans criminal enterprise, acquiesced to it and advised it, vainly claiming inadvertence
26 and naivety now, then Remington will argue in federal court that he is just as guilty as Gans, Plotz
27 or any of the rest of them. However, obviously all Remington do is argue and present the facts and
28 it will be up to another trier of facts to make a determination.
5 On August 25, 2014, Remington was ready to resume trial preparations for an imminent
crucial life or death important jury trial, which could have been abruptly scheduled as early as
6
September-October 2014 and he called Mr. Foget to inform him of that fact and to meet further.
7
Remington was then very shocked to learn that Nelson had pulled-the-plug 100% on Foget,
8
removed him entirely from Remingtons case, and unilaterally decided that he could not be
9
Remingtons expert NOW after all, or EVER. Nelson deceitfully claimed that SHN was going to
10 unilaterally and without discussion, or alternative presented, just (purportedly) abruptly stop
11 doing any litigation support entirely, because Nelson unconvincingly claimed that he just
12 doesnt like litigation support. That arrogant, self-serving and prima donna-like statement, which
13 is not likely to be Nelsons true policy or motive, didnt make sense then or now, and infers even
14 further the strong pressure which Gans applied to him through corrupt means. Why SHN would
15 abruptly violate an obvious and bona fide contract and then walk-away from a very easy $20,000 or
more for some less then fully deployed employee, who merely had to sit on his butt, and answer a
16
few rather easy questions which had already been thought through and answered by Aveggio years
17
before, has not yet been adequately answered.
18
Remington spoke to Nelson at length on the phone on August, 25, 2014 and once thereafter,
19
trying, with absolutely zero effect, to convince him to reinstate Foget into Remingtons case.
20 Nelsons mind had obviously been 100% made-up to breach our contract, long before Remington
21 spoke to him on the phone. It is not important to paraphrase that hour-long conversation here,
22 however Nelsons basic position involved suggesting that Remington use Aveggios deposition for
23 the jury, and nothing else. At one time in 2016 Remington did even contemplate doing some of
24 those pitiful half-measures, such as reading Aveggios deposition to a jury if permitted, but also
25 with another major environmental expert, Dr. McEdwards who also required at least $20,000 to get
up to the speed of Aveggio and Foget, here. However, again Gans and his enterprise foiled
26
Remingtons plan and Nelsons suggestion and have so far successfully objected to using Aveggios
27
deposition at all, and so far have blocked it. Because of Gans enterprises influence over Nelson,
28
Remington cannot now even use Foget to read his BEST friend John Aveggios two lengthy
tests, and to learn a thousand other site details involving the dumps volume, illegalities, exact
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
192
contents, lateral extent etc.; ONLY to then train some OTHER, new and unavailable second
1
person to learn all that again, at the cost of another $40,000, to present Remingtons case to a
2
jury under oath! Does that make any sense, Nelson, et al?
3
SHN has now elected to litigate this matter in San Francisco federal court, under the specter
4
of treble RICO damages rather than to refund all of Remingtons paid-in money, or compensating
5
him for his own time wasted, plus the other damages alleged, some of which are now potentially
6 treble damages, as may be recovered herein in a proper case. After the Gans enterprise and/or
7 testing technicians links are established in depositions, total damages in the six-figure range will
8 eventually be requested and probably recoverable against this defendant.
9 5. Aveggio was hired to test as needed and then to testify at all trials in this dispute and to
10 represent Remington as his sole environmental expert in all related trials, and to do nothing
11 else.
Logic, Truth and common sense dictate that Aveggio was always Remingtons only expert all
12
along, and he was hired to do ALL those things, BUT MOSTLY AND SPECIFICALLY TO
13
testify about everything known in the case in front of a jury, and obviously no one else was ever
14
supposed to do that until Foget and Nelson solemnly contracted for Foget to do the exact same
15
things at trial that Aveggio and Nelson had agreed for SHN to do in 2009-11, and Aveggio and
16
other SHN employees had been extensively trained for two years to do.
17 6. Nelsons cited actions, have violated many state and federal laws. Additionally, what
18 Nelson did has always been logically absurd and obviously morally wrong, but to yield to Gans
19 pressure, intimidation and/or threats, and the other influences detailed below, specifically violated
20 several RICO predicate acts, which means criminal laws were violated that have penalties of finds
21 and/or imprisonment, or both. Simply put, Nelson violated the following laws, inserted himself into
Gans enterprise, including, without limitation and at a minimum, as based on our best information
22
before discovery has begun in this case:
23
24 1. 18 USC 1951, Hobbs Act. EXTORTION, deliberately and believably causing FEAR in
25 Remington, plus directly caused or contributed to virtually all of the numerous types of
psychological, emotional, LEL, special, punitive damages and all of the related costs itemized in
26
the Harm and Relief Requested sections ;
27
2. 18 USC 201. BRIBERY, several inferential occurrences of that are alleged, related to Nelson
28
and perpetuated by Gans, Plotz, Ferriman, Brisso and/or other enterprise members;
11 seemed quite or even very sincere, almost honest, and whatever he did he was obviously quite
persuasive to Nelson. In any case Gans improperly influenced Nelson causing him to prejudice and
12
seriously damage Remington, by removing Foget from his trial witness list, when Foget Remington
13
had at that time.
14
Alternatively, Gans just went more directly and corruptly to Nelson with either a bribe,
15
undoubtably promises of substantial future work resulting in huge SHN profits, threats, or some
16
sort of intimidation, extortion, or future legal exposure? But, in any event Nelson in the RICO
17 enterprise together colluded in some sort of obstruction of justice, witness tampering of Mike
18 Foget, at a minimum, all of which nearly destroyed Remingtons whole case, simultaneously,
19 gravely damaging Remington and causing him extreme intentional emotional distress, among other
20 things, as a result.
21 The full and true story is yet to be determined from Nelsons, Ferrimans, Gans and Fogets
22 upcoming depositions, plus probably some of the other testers named above that have already been
23 implicated by Ms. Hoyos and others.
7. The Jeff Nelson timeline in this case, for which Remington has a very complete files,
24
chronological business record notebooks and many related phone records and written documents.
25
a. From 2009-2012: Aveggio was hired, trained, visited the contaminated sites repeatedly,
26
investigated all aspects of same and did all of the soil, asbestos and water tests that he had
27
recommended, the last group of which were completed over two days on August 1-2, 2011.
28
Following those tests, Aveggio determined in writing that a grave imminent threat to health and
the environment existed from the asbestos and related contaminates existing in soils, and the
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
195
numerous types of hydrocarbons and infectious bacteria absorbed into and flowing in waters below
1
Mathsons dump and into Remington Creek.
2
b. In January 2012, Aveggio died, very prematurely and very unexpectedly.
3
c. On July 12, 2012, Mike Foget agreed to fill-in for his deceased friend Aveggio and: Finish
4
his work; Study it and learn everything that he did or said in all his declarations and depositions;
5
advocate them at trial; and be Remingtons sole environmental engineering expert trial witness
6
through all appeals, and through as many trials as it took to resolve these disputes.
7
d. During 2012-14, Remington provided Foget with four (4) status updates by email and phone
8
messages, so there never was a time when SHN was uninformed about what was happening here,
9 for very long.
10
e. However, during that period and specifically after April 2013 but before August 2014, Gans
11 communicated with SHN and ultimately with Jeff Nelson through the various direct and circuitous
12 methods alluded to herein. Nelson therefore formally became a part of Gans extortive RICO
13 racketeering enterprise during that period, and still remains an important member, and hence a
14 RICO defendant.
15 f. After learning from Foget that Nelson was having some problems with their continued
16 representation of Remington as his sole advocacy environmental trial expert, Remington in
17 somewhat of a state of shock, spoke to Nelson on the phone on August 25, 2014 for about an hour.
18 Unfortunately, Remington could not convince him to change his mind at all, because by that
19 time he had obviously come 100% under Gans corrupt influence and financial incentives, which
Remington clearly could not match.
20
g. On August 27, 2014 Remington sent a lengthy letter to Nelson expressing his concern and
21
explaining the numerous problems and damages Nelsons unexpected and unacceptable decision
22
was causing Remington and the Burl Tree.
23
h. Simultaneously, on August 26, 2014, and crossing in the mail, Nelson said his abrogation
24
letter which unilaterally Terminated the Litigation Services and expert environmental trial
25
witness agreement between Remington and SHN.
26
i. On October 5, 2015 Remington sent his last comprehensive letter to SHN about this dispute
27
which listed and explained his damages of at least in the $39,000 range and ultimately likely to be
28 more than that.
24 claimed that Aveggios comprehensive HC water testing results done on August 1-2, 2011 were
bogus, fraudulent, and involved spiked samples (which term was never accurately defined),
25
possibly involved irregular local north coast laboratory procedures, and probably other problems
26
that were never made clear. Simply put, without repeating 50-pages of the federal Protective Order
27
motion, Summary Judgment motions and numerous other later procedural and appellate motions,
28
apparently Gans did not like the results of Aveggios tests and so he declared that something
mustve been wrong with those tests. They had no idea what that might be, had no actual evidence
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
197
the base any suspicions on, so they just made up a bunch of scientific gibberish that endeavored to
1
exonerate Mathson and the other defendants. Generally, Aveggios 2011 testing showed that there
2
were hydrocarbons and raw sewage in the water seeping below Mathsons' dump; and, that was
3
hardly surprising because for many years any visitor to the sites, including every time defendants
4
experts including Gans himself visited, they could all immediately and easily see and smell
5 hydrocarbons and sewage in the waters in the swamp, and all across the downhill side of Mathsons
6 dump. There was also always a lot of other debris and hazardous wastes to see, but that was not
7 specifically what Gans was worried about in August 2011, aside from the asbestos, which is also
8 always an issue.
9 c. The ramifications of Aveggios August 2011 testing became quite widespread, including its
10 strong influences in the 2009 federal case, but what is probably more relevant here is how
11 Ferriman, Gans and the lower level hydrocarbon testers at Blue Rock environmental, LACO
engineering, SHN engineering and the county actual tester who work for Maje Hoyos, put all this
12
together in a conspiracy which ultimately intimidated and corruptly influenced Nelson causing him
13
to withdrawal from his contractual obligations and associations with Remington. The exact
14
conversations and the exact days involved will need to be determined from depositions, but what is
15
now known is that Nelson somehow was corruptly, improperly and also wrongfully influenced by
16 Gans to disassociate himself from his long- time friend and very trusted associate, Aveggio and then
17 (most prejudicially) further prevent Foget from getting deeper involved in all this supposed and
18 imaginary corruption and potential scandal that was fictionally written and then promoted by
19 Gans RICO enterprise.
20 To make that decision, Nelson had to walk-away from another $15-$30,000 of Remingtons
21 money that Foget would have potentially made as an expert trial witness, however Gans apparently
22 convinced Nelson that SHN would never see a penny from Remington, which all is very surprising,
illogical and stupid, since Remington always paid every penny billed by SHN immediately,
23
promptly and without ever a complaint. However Gans is a very adept, convincing and charismatic
24
salesman and he very completely Sold and fully corrupted Nelson during the cited time-frame,
25
above. Nevertheless, fundamentally this court needs to consider: why would a mercenary and
26
unprincipled business executive like Jeff Nelson walk away from a certain 15-$30,000 of trial
27 expert fees at approximately double the experts normal SHN salary? When that question is
28 answered, the culpability of Nelson and his implication with the RICO enterprise will become clear
and also proven.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
198
d. There are many other factors involved here which Gans obviously used to convince Nelson
1
to back-out of his solemn common-law handshake, and one mans word to another agreement and
2
legal written contract, backing all that up, to permit Foget (and Aveggio previously) to represent
3
Remington through these contamination trials. For example, Gans is known to have always
4
misrepresented the federal magistrates findings at every opportunity, the same way he always
5 misrepresented said magistrates summary judgment decision and ultimately the Ninth Circuits
6 sustaining of that irregular and technically based decision. Both of those decisions were based
7 simply and only upon a single technical and unfortunate Pro Pers federal Rule 26 expert disclosure
8 error, and Remingtons failure to provide an expert report for Aveggio, for numerous obvious and
9 could reasons, which would take another hundred pages to explain here, and has already been done
10 elsewhere. Again, simply put Remington made a simple, innocent and good-faith expert disclosure
error, however Gans misrepresented that innocent basis for all the negative federal decisions against
11
a Remington, and argued that Remingtons and Aveggios imaginary corruption was what decided
12
of the federal cases. Without any detailed explanation or rebuttals from Remington, which rebuttals
13
and/or explanations, obviously were not possible in Gans secret enterprises conversations with
14
Jeff Nelson, over trying to get Foget permanently out of Remingtons case, Nelsons decision was
15 apparently relatively easy. Inferrentially, but still requiring discovery, Nelson decided that there
16 were financial risks and perhaps reputational risks of remaining associated with Remingtons case
17 and therefore he opted to go with the big money and the other huge financial inducements, which
18 Gans could offer over the long run. Whether Gans inducements, suspected bribes or related
19 financial advantages, extortion, coercion and/or other arguments used, were simply a common
20 short-term bribe or something more subtle, like the promise of using SHN in future cases as
experts, or a credible promise to provide SHN with $10-20,000 of future legal services, we just
21
dont know yet.
22
All that we do know so far is that Gans induced Nelson with some powerful arguments to
23
break an inviable contract to provide Fogets expert environmental trial advocacy services, at our
24
imminent upcoming trials (potentially only 2-3 weeks away), but which Nelson apparently was
25
easily able to break when he weighed what Gans had to offer in comparison.
26
e. Actually, at that very time, Gans RICO enterprise was looking for another
27 environmental expert themselves, because the Blue Rock firms experts had all been discredited and
28 remained so today. Probably Gans considered using Foget themselves, and obviously received
Nelsons blessing about that, but presumably Nelsons lawyers or other advisors suggested that
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
199
would be a bad idea. Meanwhile, for the rather obvious reasons which Remington has written
1
herein in regards to all of the enterprises current environmental experts, Gans decided to go with
2
their new expert from Oregon named Hillyard, after presumably weighing the pros and cons of the
3
two, plus the scores of other relevant factors alluded to herein.
4
f. Extortion and shakedown of Remington by Nelson.
5
During Remingtons August 2014 conversation with Nelson there was an unresolved
6
undertone about who would get Foget fully up-to-speed for trial the way that Aveggio had been.
7 Remington had spent about $40,000 of his own time and money working with Aveggio alone and
8 Remington had hoped that SHN would respect that and permit Foget to spend a few hours of SHNs
9 time to review Aveggios file and learn what he had said in his two depositions. That issue was
10 never fully resolved, however one alternative possible inference in the letters and over the phone
11 was that Nelson had been improperly influenced by Gans, and therefore may have been convinced
12 or believed that Remington was perhaps too poor to pay them for Fogets future services.
Remington has no doubt today that had Remington agreed to pay Nelson another $9-$14,000
13
upfront to get Foget fully up-to-speed on Aveggios testing and complete file then Nelson might
14
have ignored Gans offers and made a different decision. We dont really know today exactly what
15
was in Nelsons mind or what he might have done had Remington offered a larger bribe than what
16
Gans was paying.
17 What is rather clear without further discovery is that Nelson, on behalf of the enterprise
18 inferentially engaged in attempting to shake-down Remington for another $10-$15,000 of training,
19 trial expenses and additional testing costs. Although considerable more discovery is needed in these
20 areas, it is true that we probably wouldve done more SHN tests except for Judge Reinholtsens
21 illegitimate refusal to allow any, despite massive changes in the dumpsites for 6-7 years of waiting
22 for trial. He said we had to just use Aveggios prior and solid work, which in retrospect seemed like
one of the first signs of serious prejudicial bias against Remington as early as late 2015, when said
23
judges neutrality first appeared to be possibly in question. But, our evidence now shows that,
24
Nelson wanted more testing, more money, more security and apparently less risk and involvement
25
with Remingtons case, after he had agreed to join the other side.
26
There are many other details here too numerous to enumerate all of them, however, without
27 limitation: Gans is known to have informed Nelson that Remington was going to lose this case BIG
28 as based on the federal decisions; that when Remington did lose the case HE would not be paying
SHN because, a) He didnt have the money and b) because Remington owed defendants $12,000
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
200
already and after the next cases they were planning to sue Remington for malicious prosecution
1
punitive damages and many other costs which were all intended towards putting Remington into
2
bankruptcy; and, in any event since Remington would be therefore very unhappy with SHN and
3
also would not have any money, SHN would not be getting paid their last $20-30,000 for their trial
4
services. Undoubtably, Gans also added for additional false and deceitful impact, as his basic nature
5 forces him to do nothing less, that Remington was so litigious that he would also sue SHN for
6 retaliatory damages, in effect blame them for his loss, and ultimately cost SHN many times the
7 large contractually due sums which Remington had paid them for several years.
8 Therefore, both Gans and Nelson would appear to be guilty of multiple predicate acts
9 involved in that situation. Exactly who bribed and extorted whom, and in what order and on what
10 dates remains to be fully discovered in the appropriate depositions. Remington asserts today that
Nelson cooperated with and acted as an accessory to Gans Rico enterprise, during the 2012-14
11
period cited, and also obviously since then.
12
g. 18 USC 1505 was violated by Nelson by corruptly obstructing the proceedings of the
13
state court by removing Remingtons sole environmental expert, Foget, only two weeks before a
14
possible projected state trial in September 2014.
15
Under 18 USC 1515 (b) the above term corruptly means acting with an improper
16
purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading
17 statement, or withholding, concealing, altering or destroying other information.
18 Specifically here, Nelson violated 1505 by corruptly persuading Foget to refuse to testify
19 by improperly influencing and ordering him to comply with his essentially unlawful master-servant
20 orders, and in doing so Nelson acted with improper purposes towards his contractee Remington,
21 and also towards his employees Foget and Aveggios memory and legacy.
22 In communicating with Remington, Nelson withheld his contacts with and influence by Gans
23 and also withheld the significant low-level testing technicians conspiracy between the several
24 companies and governmental departments described above. That conspiracy emanated originally
from Gans and his orders were issued through Plotz and Ferriman, which quickly resulted in
25
prejudicially removing all of Remingtons Eureka environmental experts, and also succeeded in
26
prevented any SHN representatives from advocating or explaining Aveggios work, authenticating
27
his hand-writing as needed for his imminent threat, August 2011 hand-written notes, or even from
28
bringing in his actual testers to authenticate the original SHN January, 2011 tests.
16 and unfortunately his environmental expert trial services are obviously available to the highest
17 bidder, wherein, what actually happened here was that Remington just lost out to billionaire Allied
18 Insurance with their unlimited funds to litigate and/or bribe with here. A few examples of that
19 include, without limitation:
20 1) Under Gans directions and inducements, Nelson destroyed Remingtons case by removing
all competent Eureka experts, violated a reasonable and legitimate litigation support agreement and
21
inviolable contract, which seriously damaged Remington only a few weeks before an expected jury
22
trial. Nelson even further conspired against Remington and encouraged other competitors, such as
23
LACO Engineering to go against Remington.
24
2) By accepting bribery money or other corrupt influence or inducements from Gans, Nelson
25
also fraudulently violated the state and federal laws cited here related to obstruction of justice,
26
witness tampering, extortion and bribery, etc.
27 3) Therefore, Gans RICO objectives were fully satisfied by Nelson. Aveggio was removed by
28 luck, but then his replacement Foget was fully eliminated and then Aveggios brilliant work itself
10 with him about this, which confirms their overall corrupt, RICO racketeering and generally
indefensible actions, which they have consistently refused to ever fully discuss.
11
12 j. 18 USC 1512. WITNESS TAMPERING, by Nelson but under Gans enterprises
15 fraudulently attempted very strenuously to depose Foget in fall 2015 knowing full-well that he had
16 been removed by Nelson, and would never be allowed to appear to even read Aveggios
17 depositions, and further he had been officially de-designated by Remington in fall 2015. What
18 Gans exact improper tactics were for two months and WHY he was doing that and trying to trick
19 Remington into losing all his environmental experts, has been discussed and complained of
20 elsewhere. Since Gans and Plotz already fully understand their corrupt subterfuge and related
21 extortive RICO enterprise activity and improper emotional and other fear-inducing pressures
22 exerted upon Remington in this area, Remington will skip the several pages it would take to
23 explain all that here. During discovery involving the above RICO leadership and others, Remington
24 will pursue those significant issues in written and oral discovery, and update the additionally learn
25 facts in his next amended RICO statement.
26 Gans was obviously working-with and coordinating closely with Nelson in that deposition
27 matter, quite possibly hoping to trap Remington into false sworn testimony or to otherwise
28 prejudice his case, in other ways, all of which failed. These issues will be of considerable
importance in Nelson and Fogets depositions, however.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
204
1 k. 42 USC 1983, Miscellaneous other actionable deprivations of Remingtons rights by
2 Nelson.
3 As discussed above, Nelson violated Remingtons civil rights here as described and also
4 violated California Business and Professions Code 17, 200 also as alleged above.
5 As part of Gans criminal and civil RICO enterprise, Nelson unlawfully, willfully and
6 fraudulently breached the services contract with Remington and thus he and SHN are guilty of
7 improper business practices in addition to tortful breach of contract, all of which tortful acts
8 seriously damaged Remington and the Burl Tree, and will be redressed BOTH here, under RICO,
9 and in various other state proceedings as required. During the next few years of intensive discovery
10 here, many more violations of Remington civil rights are anticipated to be discovered.
11
12 2K. Julie McBride is Gans longtime secretary, legal assistant, researcher and
13 close confidant.
14 No one on earth really knows about this criminal racketeering enterprise any better than she
15 does or about Gans true corrupt nature, lack of scruples and absence of any proper ethics. She has
16 seen the coaching, invited in the witnesses to be coached, made small-talk with most of the
17 conspirators cited here and obviously understands the true evil nature of what Gans is doing here in
18 this case and probably in all his cases. Inferentially, she knows Gans better than he knows himself.
19 McBride knows everything corrupt or criminal that goes on there, or should know if and
20 probably when she tries to claim ignorance or stupidity. However, over many years we have
21 established that she is not just some dumb bimbo or secretary-receptionist hired only for her good
22 looks, or coffee-making abilities. What we DO know about her so far is that she is not just a typist
23 and word-processor, but is a qualified legal researcher, Executive Assistant and intellectual confidant
24 to Gans, and for all we know now before her deposition, she may be the one with the big balls that is
25 encouraging him to win at any cost, and may share equal responsibility with him for their criminal
26 acts. Until substantial discovery has been successfully concluded, we cannot discount the fact that she
27 might be just as powerful and evil mastermind in all these cases as Linda Lawrence is in Sacramento.
28 After Plotz perhaps, she would be the next best corrupt, named enterprise defendant for the
federal civil or criminal authorities to target, and Remington himself intends to target and depose
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
205
1 her federally, VERY EARLY, at the proper time, once more written Discovered detail has been
2 gathered, understood and planned-around. Obviously Gans cannot let her tell the truth, so we
3 can now expect to have World War III and World War IV in Gans attempting to prevent her, as well
4 as himself and all the others named herein, from being deposed at all. Remington will need to
5 design a standard form for motions to compel in this case. McBride here is not just a "secretary"
6 who gets the coffee and doughnuts, and at a minimum she is Gans administrative and legal
7 assistant and in all probability is also Gans CEO when it comes to enterprise business, coordinating
8 all its affairs, in keeping everybody out of trouble. Will McBride lie effectively for Gans and will
9 he be able to coach her to lie effectively in federal court the way his state witnesses did, or will
10 justice, some minor vestige of humanity and/or honest scruples plus some guilt on her part interfere
11 with and perhaps impede all of that, when the possibility of doing prison time for the perjury
12 becomes a real possibility? It would seem that lying in federal court with the possibility of prison
13 time being the penalty would be unpleasant, nerve-racking and get very old, very fast. However,
14 happily thats not Remingtons problem but it sure is a big problem to all of Gans RICO witnesses.
15 Remington has had considerable experience with various so-called "secretaries" and more of
16 them than you think are really CEOs and corporate presidents with fancy hairdos in skirts. For
17 example in Remingtons Spielberg case, Spielberg's secretary Bonnie Curtis spoke eloquently and
18 completely for him in the 1990s and rightfully also went on to become a full-fledged movie
19 producer of $100 million films. She was so important, and impossibly well-guarded, that
20 Remingtons Los Angeles process server was unable to serve her in 30 days of attempts because she
21 was just too important and well-protected to get through to. As a result, due to what she had
22 promised Remington and due to the fact that Remington could never communicate with her or get
23 any written document or deposition from her of any any kind, that cost Remington a multimillion
24 dollar case. Secretaries can be important, and in this case Bonnie Curtis was much smarter and
25 much more powerful than Gans could ever hope to be, and probably McBride also.
26 Whether McBride will ever produce a million-dollar film is unknown, but probably she
27 could and obviously she's not just some dump Bimbo, which they will now obviously attempt to
28 portray her as. Whether she's the evil mastermind pushing Gans into worse and more serious federal
crimes each month with possible prison terms up to 20 years, is not yet known, but it will be.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
206
1 More specifically: Remington has spoken to or received direct communications from Ms.
2 McBride several times per year for eight years, and she can act independently of Gans, most
3 recently in August 2016 when she deceitfully explained to Remington, by email, the purportedly
4 TWO alternatives for him to consider if Judge Reinholtsen were disqualified. She explained that
5 under CCP 170.3 (c) (5) Remington had two judges to consider to preside over Judge
6 Reinholtsens possible disqualification, EITHER Judges Heinrichs and Wilson.
7 BUT, understanding the corrupt source of the information, Remington quickly researched
8 and thereafter concluded that there were more than just the two alternatives which Gans and
9 McBride wanted Remington to choose between, and that the only fair, honest and possibly
10 unbiased solution was actually a third unstated alternative. That was to find an independent visiting
11 or down south judge that did not eat lunch with and socialize every day with Judge Reinholtsen,
12 and ultimately that obvious alternative was selected and carried out.
13 McBride is believed to be ALSO thoroughly corrupt which is obviously needed to work full-
14 time for 15 or more years for a long-time mafia-like racketeering leader. How could she not be?
15 Remington has had numerous secretaries and personal or administrative assistants and by necessity
16 they have to understand the work going on, especially if it is corrupt, just as well as the big boss.
17 Whether she issued unlawful orders or not is presently unknown, however she was a smart
18 woman, right in the middle of a criminal racketeering gang and had to been aware of what was
19 going on. Would the godfathers personal secretary transcribing notes in the middle of meetings be
20 oblivious of the basic criminal nature of the crime family? That will be one for the jury perhaps.
21 She helped to plan, write and type every unlawful and unethical detail presumably did the
22 research regarding each and every federal predicate act of mail fraud, and colluded and participated
23 in such specifically enumerated frauds as how to plagiarize a federal judges orders without going to
24 jail, and inferentially she edited all, or perhaps even individually authored many of Gans unpleasant,
25 threatening, mischaracterized, fraudulent and often extortive writings for his signature. It now seems
26 beyond likely that she gave him infinite inspiration and probably reminded him, with her superb
27 memory, of the hundreds of past relevant nasty and false accusations against Remington that she has
28 been typing and copying for many years, from many months or years previously, to add into the
8 status, which he could probably defend and/or defeat rather easily if he decides to tell the truth
9 about what he knows about Gans corrupt enterprise, or convincingly pleaded insanity and
actually convincingly pretend to appear to be genuinely shocked.
10
11 3. List the additional alleged wrongdoers, other than the defendants
12 listed above, and state the alleged misconduct of each wrongdoer.
13 A. Larry Kluck, Esq. of Francis Matthews and Associates law firm, is the present attorney
14 for RAO, Rich Olson, Kyle Skillings and the other likely RAO DOE defendants, presently unknown.
15 Kluck is and has been clearly under Gans full influence and total control for over two years, as
16 he gets 100% of his case documents from the Mitchell firm, and never asks Remington for anything
17 when we see each other every few weeks or so. Evidently he gets all copies of Remingtons documents
18 easily and better, straight from Gans.
19 Essentially by definition therefore, Kluck IS NOW IN Gans RICO enterprise, because he is
fully under Gans control, getting 100% of his information about Remington in these cases through
20
Gans only, plus Kluck has personally committed at least two significant listed predicate acts,
21
described herein, including below.
22
Kluck has done nothing substantive or material yet in any of these cases, except to sit there in
23
court and pretend to be interested, occasionally. That is because his case is still stayed and
24 obviously he has the utmost confidence that Gans will kick-Remingtons-ass out of court so that he
25 (Kluck) will never have to do anything here, which inferentially appears to be his preference.
26 Kluck talked to Gans at length at least twice a week in the courthouse corridors, which
27 Remington personally observed, from May through September 2016. How many other meetings
28 they had that Remington is not aware of and did not observe is unknown. However, it is doubtful
that Kluck appreciates the depths of the criminality to which Gans is leading Kluck, Olson and all
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
211
of the RAO defendants, but hell wake-up and get it soon enough, if he is not now fully informed
1
about the truth in these matters.
2
Also, whether Olson has honestly explained his criminal hauling, disposal and related crimes
3
in 1998-2000 (to Kluck), which crimes presumably what occurred also in many other earlier and
4
later periods at other sites, is unknown and beyond the scope of Remingtons present involvement
5 or concern.
6 Kluck has not yet bothered or harmed Remington substantially or frequently like Gans has
7 done, except in his single serious attempt to extort Remington with Hobbs Act inspired fear as
8 described above when he tested Remington, intimated that he would probably lose this case
9 against the mighty Russell Gans, and his related course of acts, amply described above. Remington
10 cannot yet allege two federal predicate acts against Kluck, and therefore is not attempting to do so
here, yet.
11
Therefore, Kluck has not yet been named as a defendant here, but almost CERTAINLY
12
will be as he is right on the edge of the hornets nest (buzzing like a possible wasp), under Gans
13
full control, and Remington would expect he will be very soon promoted to the cover of page 1 as a
14
defendant at, or prior to the time of the FAC in this case, or sooner. He again came really close to
15 getting there with his disingenuous and entirely knowingly CORRUPT Supplemental case
16 management conference statement dated January 13, 2017 for the February 17, 2017 hearing.
17 Remingtons February 13, 2017 comment number six in his declaration of Bruce Remington was:
18 Most, but not all of the background history and legal statements made by Mr. Kluck in his
19 January 13, 2017 statement are incorrect, false or deliberately misleading conjecture or wrong self-
20 serving predictions, which misstate California law in any case at best, and did not take into account
the numerous appealable errors made during 2016 in DR 080678, at worst. It is probably about
21
60:40 that DR 080678 will be appealed in the next two years, however as discussed in the 10-page
22
document and as formally ruled on behalf of Department Eight by Judge Watson in 2014,
23
DR140426 is entirely independent of DR 080678, and therefore there is no need to wait for more or
24
any actions in that case before continuing with DR140426.
25 For example, Klucks corrections in the caption about being erroneously sued as RAO
26 Construction is somewhat disingenuous, and as noted above we do use the term INC, and to me
27 construction can be abbreviated by CO, as Kluck likes to do, and RAO has been referred to as
28 RAO construction for years in these cases, and no one ever furnished any discovery
documentation to correct that, but they soon will have the opportunity to do so.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
212
Additionally, Kluck deviously, unethically and wrongfully keeps referring to Costa
1
Trucking as a defendant, in a blatant and flagrant attempt to try to embarrass Remington and to
2
make him look inept and inexact. Kluck well-knows that Costa is not charged as a defendant here
3
and that his transparent and corrupt effort at confusion which he will attribute to Remington
4
eventually IS DECEITFUL AND FALSE, for reasons which were explained in detail in many other
5 case documents that are beyond the scope here. [These blatant attempts to prejudice Remington
6 with a new court in DR140426 are improper, unethical and unacceptable going forward, but are
7 also the price of admission and the required corrupt and actually the only method of operating
8 within Gans enterprise, and definitely reflects very adversely on his integrity as a disingenuous
9 zealot, and corrupt advocate. Nevertheless, the above deliberate errors and unethical advocacy
10 tactics in estate proceeding are not yet federal predicate acts, and therefore not enough to elevate
him to RICO defendant status, however that is virtually guaranteed very shortly, if he keeps that up
11
as he now must.] Gans requires nothing less than corruption and criminality, so for Kluck to
12
actually begin real work with Gans, the federal criminal result of their collaboration is very
13
inevitable. Remingtons February 13, 2017 status conference comments continued with, in
14
relevant part:
15 This court might note that in my caption here Costa trucking is not listed as a defendant.
16 Gans originated that false defendant (FRAUD) by alleging that Costa trucking was a defendant at
17 a 2014 deposition, involved in this criminal activity, but after some investigation, they were never
18 sued in this case because I reasonably concluded that the new owners of Costa Trucking were not
19 responsible for or implicated in the crimes known to have been committed by all of the named
20 defendants, plus some others that are not yet named. All of that has been well-known to all
defendants for several years, but Kluck thinks he is being cute by harping on spelling and
21
inconsequential technical and semantic errors, however sooner or later he is going to have to take
22
all of these actual substantive case issues more seriously and get into the real case facts, which
23
center upon the real criminality of his clients and the possibility that some of these RICO enterprise
24
members, not excluding himself, could eventually serve time over these criminal RICO litigatory
25 tactics.
26
B. RAOs insurer, Allstate, State Farm? or whoever they are discovered to be.
27
Olsons liability insurance will have to protect his and RAOs massive felonious 1998 trucking
28
and excavation operation on Mathsons' (and Remingtons) land and probably he has done this
27 however all of that has been deleted and without calling them on the phone it appears to be impossible to
determine who works there, what their titles are, what their individual responsibilities are and who they
28 work for. Even when Remington did call them on the phone, everyone is very secretive and circumspect
about anything that they do, or who works where and does what. Why they have done that is unknown,
however it is now difficult or impossible to determine individual culpability for any problem, nor can the
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
235
1 eight years cited above however Martel made many major decisions, which potentially could have
2 greatly affected these cases. Unfortunately, most of her decisions were to do nothing and essentially
3 to condone Mathsons, RAOs, Brissos and now the RICO enterprises dump and criminal behavior
4 in establishing it. She did most of that in collusion with Brisso, Gans and their special envoy Esko,
5 as described below.
6 As alluded to in footnote #20, above and below, after a 2015 investigation by Remington, Larry
7 Lancaster, Ms. Hawkins and Amanda Ruddy are now named here as possible Martel Confederates
8 who are knowledgeable about her Esko connections and the improper and coercive Brisso-Gans
9 influences within that department. Those named above, are important material witnesses in these
10 cases, who are Not likely actual RICO enterprise members, pending further discovery in their
11 department, which is already in progress.
12 Martel has a rather complex history in these cases, so to simplify that here, it was her unusual
13 decision to appoint the special envoy and non-employee Peter Esko as a consultant in this case
14 which is of most interest here. Esko was apparently brought in to these cases solely to suddenly and
15 unexpectedly exonerate Brisso's client the Mathsons of all environmental charges from the County
16 or the Waterboard, when it was totally obvious to everyone that they had violated every known
17 environmental law in 1998, which violations continued into the present.
18 It would be difficult to under-state the oddness and inconsistency of involving Esko in these
19 matters or to understand or explain the inconsistencies of his decisions here, strangely approved by
20 Melissa Martel.
21 For example, Richard Miller is well-known to Remington and this entire Eureka area and he
22 was fined $100,000 by the Health Department under Martel for doing much less than what Mathson
23 and RAO did. The only difference discernible to Remington is that Brisso was representing the
24 latter enterprise defendants and had a close and inferentially unethical association with Martel
25 through LAFCo and probably other associations, such as the county counsel's office. Improper
26 influence and power? All of that seems to be present here, however in fairness, more detailed
27 public track any individual employee, hierarchy or do any sort of litigation investigation for a motion or
cause of action. Over the years, Carolyn Hawkins, Larry Lancaster, Maje Hoyos and Melissa Martel have
28 all played important parts in these litigations but now it is difficult to get any records about what they did
or said without reviewing 2-8 year-old notes, and getting any of their work product or conclusions from
past investigations has always been difficult, but now appears to require a subpoena or court order .
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
236
1 discovery of all types is now required here to determine exact facts.
2 Melissa Martel has communicated by letter with Remington, around 2010-12 and has
3 eventually sent-out Maje Hoyos on several occasions, to investigate these dumpsites, but always
4 MANY months too late when County assistance had already clearly become essentially useless.
5 Remington has virtually begged her several times to send out investigators, take tests or do
6 something useful to resolve these contamination problems on two sites, yet she has always almost
7 100% ignored Remington and his entreaties. To Remington and all of his environmental experts, it
8 has always been a matter of great consternation as to why Ms. Martell did not take Remingtons
9 contamination seriously, and the strong inference has always been that she was under incredible
10 pressure from Brisso in particular, who was undoubtably sparked by Gans. During discovery here
11 Remington will put together the odd and apparently corrupt timeline of letters, pleadings by
12 Remington to take various timely actions which might have been useful for trials, all of which need
13 to be studied in terms of the odd background, and screamingly loud corrupt implications of how
14 the county completely ignored Remington and his experts entreaties 100%, and for many months,
15 until it apparently appeared to Brisso (and Martel and her staff) that tests or action by the county
16 would now be too late to assist Remington at any trial. In other words, once Brisso and Martel
17 believed that testing and reports by their County investigators such as Maje Hoyos, were much too
18 late, and could not help Remington at all, then they were all over Remingtons property with
19 substantive tests and investigations in December 2011. Happily, those extremely late tests which
20 were intentionally scheduled by the above so as to be totally useless in DR080669 and DR080678,
21 now have accidentally become extremely relevant on all additional cases which continue.
22 Reiterating in different words, several times the only thing that was needed was Martels
23 authorization or signature, however she has always found numerous unknown, but above inferred
24 reasons to procrastinate, obfuscate, and do nothing for years at a time. BUT, ultimately she
25 approved decisive actions in November-December 2011, however that was only after she had to
26 know, and obviously had been told by Brisso or Gans that not only was there no contamination
27 here but that taking tests 6-12 months after discovery had closed would not help Remington at all in
28 his contamination trials in the two above cases, and Brisso also made it clear that not having those
tests would lead to Remingtons resounding defeat. In that instance, the RICO enterprise would
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
237
1 reach all of its objectives, and said enterprise was just being conceived and formed in its earliest
2 2012 manifestations, which was at approximately the time of, and somewhat after, the Esko and
3 Hoyos reports had been created and then thoroughly understood and put in proper perspective.
4 That is, what all named above appeared to want, was for the county to do nothing and for
5 Remington to disappear and leave all contamination alone on both sites. That was the opposite of
6 what the Hazardous Materials Unit should have done, and was the exact opposite of what all her
7 site investigators assured Remington about the actions that the county would definitely be taking.
8 Those actions were absolutely quoted and defined by all County investigators from 2008-11, which
9 were that : sooner or later the county will order the cleanup of both properties, that meant that
10 the county would be ordering cleanup actions of all contaminating materials by Gans, RAO and
11 Mathson, pursuant to Remingtons requests. However, Brisso killed all of those young enthusiastic
12 investigators promises and commitments when he got very heavily involved in these cases in 2009.
13 Why Martel was so overtly prejudiced against Remington, when all of her site investigators
14 represented the opposite position; and, exactly WHY she was so unduly biasedIn favor of Gans,
15 Brisso and Mathson remains to be discovered. Why would she bend County policy and go against
16 their own investigators so directly in order to benefit the major contaminators RAO, Mathson and
17 by that time the Gans- Brisso RICO enterprise? What was the quid pro quo? What benefit did she
18 derive from all of this? Those are some of the inquiries we will be making in this case and it would
19 appear that Martel has a lot of explaining to do and we will need to subpoena her personal
20 documents to see if some kind of financial benefit was involved here.
21 For some factually unknown reason, however, (although we have our present unflattering
22 and possible examples of and interferences of possible gross irregularities or the corruption alleged
23 above), Ms. Martel does not take these toxic contamination cases very seriously, especially the
24 contamination on Remingtons land. There is asbestos and many kinds of highly toxic wastes both
25 airborne and waterborne, plus gas station remediation drums, etc. buried in Mathsons draw, yet the
26 county just can't get motivated about it for some reason.
27 In 2008-10, Maje Hoyos and Mark Johnson both PROMISED that "sooner or later
28 both properties will get cleaned up", but the top Humboldt County Health Department authorities,
from Martel on down, have since then "slow-walked" these cases, and then suspended them
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
238
1 entirely. Now the California Waterboard supposedly has the contamination files from the county,
2 but again inferentially the power of Brisso has far-reaching effect to obstruct investigations here.
3 Remington totally and completely relied upon Hoyos and Johnsons promises above, and
4 thereafter planned his entire litigation strategy for at least six years on that reliance, only to have it
5 proven, or at this point strongly inferred, that Martel has been improperly influenced, intimidated
6 or bribed, and is in any case somehow controlled by or otherwise involved in a quid pro quo with
7 Brisso, Gans, Plotz, Mathson, and/or others at a minimum.
8 For many years, Remington has inferred and learned from several indirect and
9 knowledgeable sources that Brisso, the county attorneys office and related forces above, have
10 inexplicably become involved in all minor aspects of the Remington-Mathson litigations. They
11 have not assisted or furthered said investigations, but have for years slowed-them-down, blocked
12 them, or substantially and inexplicably impeded their progress in any case.
13 For example,The Esko letter can only be concluded as proving that the county has totally
14 sided with Mathson and the Mitchell firm in these litigations and is now assisting in the major
15 pervasive cover-up of all of the problems enumerated in these documents, and conclusively have
16 determined that all of the massive contamination which still exists on both sites today can continue
17 to exist, exactly where it is and it can continue to infect and pollute the environment, as complained
18 of herein.
19 Remington believes that Brisso has improperly influenced Martell and her department to
20 acquiesce to Mathsons contaminated dump and essentially to not do anything to either clean it up
21 punish defendants for establishing it there in the first place. Probably the district attorney will have
22 to get involved here to investigate and understand whether this RICO conspiracy has reached deep
23 into the Health Department and affected these cases or whether there are some other innocent
24 explanations for what's going on here, which are unfathomable and incomprehensible to
25 Remington, as will be determined shortly by discovery.
26 Ms. Martell should be deposed or investigated by the County DA, and by the wider federal
27 authorities when they get involved, because as alluded to above, getting any useful investigations
28 from a Eureka department reputedly and/or inferentially controlled by Gans, Brisso and the RICO
enterprise appears somewhat unlikely, although we will try and see what happens factually and
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
239
1 evidentially. Maybe Remington is out-of-line and the sites are just not contaminated enough" to
2 warrant county or state action. Remingtons experts think that there is serious contamination here,
3 now gravely damaging and posing an imminent threat to the environment and that all contaminants
4 should be removed from both properties, and that the cover-ups now ongoing, already arise to
5 criminality here.
6 Meanwhile, at present it cannot yet be proven that Martel has "done any wrongdoing" in
7 these matters, however she inferentially does appear to be involved in this RICO enterprise
8 although possibly on its fringes, as inferred and alluded to above. Brisso is such a powerful figure
9 here that, it cannot be overstated. It is very likely that his influence, power in the fear and respect
10 that he inspires, has reached DEEP into the County Counsel's office to obstruct Remington's
11 relationship with his witness Ms. Hoyos. What young attorney just starting-out with the County is
12 going to do anything to oppose Brisso? We will have our own preliminary investigatory answer to
13 that quite soon.
14 On the other hand, Ms. Hoyos bosses Martell and/or Larry Lancaster could either be directly
15 involved themselves or just influenced by Brisso and/or his powerful attorney friends, associates
16 and/or agents. Obviously, there are many questions remaining here which will require extensive
17 discovery. Equally obvious is that none of these agencies ,and potential enterprise members are
18 going to voluntarily provide any information about anything, so a long complicated expensive
19 discovery process can be expected.
20 Melissa Martel is effectively insulated by 4-5 layers of subordinates, so "reaching her" for
21 proofs of any wrongdoing is likely beyond Remington's power and likely will take confessions
22 from only one of the following group: Gans, Brisso, Plotz, Mark Johnson, Maje Hoyos, Amanda
23 Ruddy, Carolyn Hawkins, Julie McBride, Peter Esko or others who may be knowledgeable of the
24 situation.
25 One or two of that group with a common story of wrongdoing could easily implicate Melissa
26 Martel, or any others involved or maybe they'll exonerate her, as Remington has no present absolute
27 proofs of her wrongdoing per se. What we have now is just an obvious strange and determined lack
28 of desire, TOTAL lack of diligence or any motivation to go zealously after a Gans/Brisso client and
RICO enterprise WHO obviously collectively (in and around 1990-2003) were much more common
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
240
1 criminals and felons, is thoroughly described herein, than Richard Miller ever was. Here, the
2 WHO potentially obviously includes the Mathsons, RAO, Olson, Skillings and their associates,
3 the original 1998 era criminals that Gans RICO enterprise now protects, while simultaneously
4 attempting to destroy Remington and his business financially.
If Melissa Martel was eventually convicted of some kind of complicity in the possible
5
predicate acts alluded to herein, then arguably she has alone from her lethargy and inactions caused
6
Remington more than $100,000 in direct damages, plus several times that dollar amount in lost
7
time, over 8-10 years and counting. Ms. Martell could have ended all this in summer 2011, but
8
chose not to, as she has slow-walked, obstructed, or possibly worse, the Remington investigations
9 and waited, until it was far too late to help Remington at any trial, before she would allow
10 Maje Hoyos to conduct her December 2011 investigations. Inferentially, Martel was fully apprised
11 of the state trial schedules, and impeded all investigations before any trial and then scheduled
12 them for long after all anticipated trial dates, to such a time when Brisso assumed that the cases
13 would be 100% over.
14 Those December 2011 investigations were needed for two trials set many months earlier in
2011, but were postponed. However as a result, Judge Reinholtsen STILL barred those tests from
15
any use whatsoever in those first two 2008 filed cases, which has also greatly prejudiced
16
Remington. Whether Brisso successfully plotted the prejudicial collusion between Ms. Martel and
17
Judge Reinholtsen is a possibility, but is presently unprovably speculative until we develop further
18
factual details about it over the next couple years in discovery as explained.
19 In the future, Ms. Martels culpability, possible corruption or innocence will likely depend
20 upon the Esko report details which are enumerated below in the next section. Why did Martel and
21 Esko not get two sides of the issue from our preeminent, nationally respected contamination expert
22 Aveggio, when we offered his assistance?
23 Why wasnt the status of Mathsons dump considered to be an adversarial issue where two
24 sides were reasonably and fairly consulted, rather than what actually did occur which was just a
direct, obvious and deliberate, planned exoneration of Mathsons massive contaminated hazardous
25
waste dump?
26
This situation was analogous to when President Clinton improperly and very controversially
27
met for 40-minutes on the tarmac with Loretta Lynch in Arizona in summer 2016. Simply put, it
28
stinks. Similarly, ditto as to the obvious corrupt Trump to Russian connections during the campaign
the Flying J gas station contamination site; and on balance and after due consideration here,
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
290
1 Remington now sees no other alternative than that Dalka was somehow paid-off to ignore RAOs
2 violations of law. Said violations were apparently blatant, open to public view and must have been
3 known to Dalka, although his visit to Remingtons property did come a couple of months after the
4 claimed dates of the Mathsons-RAO dumping project. Maybe Dalka was just late getting-up there
5 and his intuition led him to believe that something was happening there but he got there two months
6 late. That would also be a plausible alternative since Remington who occupied the next residence
7 150 yards south did not notice Mathsons project at all, but that was because he was not there during
8 daylight ever, was very busy, and he did not have the job of tracking-down contaminated wastes
9 from gas station remediation projects along Broadway in 1998, which job Dalka did have.
10 Dalka appears to have now left the area and may not even be alive. We will soon question
11 Olson, Skillings and Mathson closely about this, but 1998 events are beyond the scope of the civil
12 statute of limitations for this RICO conspiracy, but may still apply to defendants criminal
13 contamination case violations, which were criminal originally, and which are now being
14 conspiratorially covered-up. When US attorneys or other criminal investigatory authorities look at
15 all these facts and criminal violations, it would appear that many of these serious criminal
16 transgressions against public health and welfare may not have statute of limitations, but we will see.
17 The Dalka issue merely infers what we already know: Olson and his criminal operation
18 violated at least 50 known documented hauling, dumping and disposal laws and made big money
19 doing it. Slipping Dalka a couple thousand dollars when the worst contaminated soils were likely
20 already buried in Mathsons draw in sealed 55-gallon drums and covered with clean Cooksey soils,
21 would probably have kept Dalka happy because he never really seemed like a normal, zealous
22 contamination inspector and always seemed rather ODD, circumspect, conceivably looking for
23 mischief for which he could request a bribe, and watchful or guilty as though something else
24 were going-on in his mind that he was concealing. Perhaps coming-over and testing soils on
25 Remingtons land was his way of determining if Remington was feeling guilty, and if so, Remington
26 might have offered him a bribe. That never occurred to Remington, since he was not feeling guilty
27 about anything, but it may have been in Dalkas mind, especially when he decided to unnecessarily
28 test for major soil contamination right underneath a tiny diesel drip from a hand-filled loader tank.
13 become a feverishly involved player here since about 2014 and his plagiarism of a federal judge
14 because he was desperate and had nothing factual or credible. Gans activities departed from the
15 unethical and over-zealous in 2012-14 when he paid and encouraged his County superior Court file
16 room saboteur to separate, scatter and ruin many of Remingtons contentious lengthy filed
17 documents, and several searches never confirmed that said documents reached their proper judges
18 and courtrooms.
19 Gans crowning CRIMINAL achievement to date was his surprise horrific suborning of perjury
15 aggressive, unethical advocacy, but only California ethical violations that no one seemed especially
16 concerned with. That was LONG before any pattern or racketeering enterprise was noticeably
17 formed.
18 1) Beginning in 2008, Gans and Brisso of the Mitchell firm embezzled funds from their financier
19 Allied Insurance, grossly inflated costs to them and then to Remington when he was billed for
20 swindled costs already paid by Allied. In those 2008-9 special motion fee hearings the Mitchell firm
21 burglarized, over-billed and attempted to extort Remington by more than $9000, but failed in that
22 robbery, when Judge Miles believed Remington briefly and long enough to follow his 20-30
23 pages of proofs which implicated Brisso and Gans;
24 2) Also in September 2008, John Mathson is strongly suspected (and seen nearby) in the actual,
25 serious arson fire at Remingtons 5000 square foot residence under construction, while Remington
26 was simultaneously defending against defendants Special Motion and 40 systematically made
27 organizational complaints, discussed elsewhere;
28 3) In summer 2011, serious defendants experts declaration perjuries and errors in reports-volume,
toxicity, but not yet formalized as perjury at any trial;
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
356
1 4) John Mathsons vandalism pattern was first begun in 2008, but was in its infancy, and easier to
2 contain then, compared to organized, systematic attacks in 2012, ON Figas and Remington;
3 5) Also early threats, anger, extortions and attempts to break Remingtons spirit and that of his
4 experts occurred as early as 2008-11, but not as serious predicate acts then;
5 6) The Mathsons spread untreated feces, urea and associated diseased bacteria and viruses on
6 Remingtons land from their unpermitted, but clandestinely and professionally BUILT illegal
7 septic system since about 2005, again hardly a felonious federal crime, although a serious health
8 threat to Remington and the community, almost KILLING Remington several times already, ETC;
9 B. 2012, Defendants RICO pattern of discrete federal predicate acts began, and continued
10 open-ended continuity, through today, in November 2016 (in approximate chronological order):
11 1. Attempted Extortion by 100+ acts of Mathson & Skillings felony vandalism and burglary
12 over many years, and specifically complained of here from December 2012- December 2016.
13 John Mathsons fully documented and many times complained-of-in-writing Burglaries of
14 burl, iron, mill and agricultural machinery, tools, supplies and equipment, PLUS his exasperating
15 and very damaging serial vandalisms of Remingtons mile long perimeter fences, nursery plants,
16 ALL Remingtons major gardens, miles of irrigation lines, dozen pumps and four (4) major elevated
17 irrigation reservoirs, and Mathsons personal leadership of his often-documented and photographed,
18 tame and trained deer armies, VIOLATE 1951, the Hobbs Act in the many ways described
19 herein.
20 After many years of actually inflicting serious damage to Remingtons property, Gans threat is
21 more than reasonable and has repeatedly been carried-out with obvious criminal and extortive
22 intent. Most federal courts in the United States have determined that there is no need for an overt
23 act to carry out the threat, and no necessity for Remington to permanently give up his land and
24 move from the area in order for him to prove that he has been extorted. The crime of extortion is
25 complete before the money or land is handed over. The laws of extortion are however complex.
26 Remington has in effect surrendered to defendants extortion, for 18 years, as to the area of his
27 property that is encroached upon by defendants dump of approximately 1/3 acre. That area cannot
28 be cleared and remediated today because defendants dumped debris are so deep that it would
totally collapse Mathsons entire upper property, along with his house, enormous garage and all its
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
357
1 other expensive structures and gardens, if Remington removed defendants contaminants before a
2 retaining wall was built, at Mathsons expense. Defendants contaminants occupy, ruin and totally
3 preempt and prevent any and all fruitful uses by Remington of the area encroached upon by
4 defendants hazardous wastes, leach deadly biological pathogens into the hillside, which have made
5 Remington deathly ill repeatedly, since 2013, and also tremendously diminishes the value of
6 Remingtons entire property. The net effect of the above is that Remington has to date, and for 18
7 years now, been successfully extorted out of a significant portion of the property in dispute in these
8 lawsuits.
9 However there are several other sections of Burl Tree property, the other 2 acres here,
10 involved here, where defendants have not yet been fully successful because Remington is still
11 litigating the basic contamination issues.
12 It is difficult for an outsider or distant court to really understand whats going-on here, hence
13 Remington has provided a large amount of photographs in Volume III, and next will provide an
14 excellent analogy at this point.
15 Consider the Putin and Russian invasion, take over and annexation of the Crimea, Ukraine in
16 2014, which was a criminal land-grab no worse than what defendants did here in 1998 and have
17 been attempting to cover up and justify ever since. Cursorily summarizing tens of thousands of
18 pages about both incidents:
19 RUSSIA:
20 1. Invaded the Ukraine without direct provocation in 2014 and annexed the Crimea, 10,000
21 beautiful and strategic square miles, with an important naval base, and which originally comprised
22 about 1/20 of Ukraine;
23 2. Russia then continued battling, attacking and killing innocent people in the Ukraine, applying
24 unbearable military pressure, threatening to conquer Eastern Ukraine and perhaps all of Ukraine;
25 3. Rather than simply pay rent for a naval base at Sevastopol or in the Crimea, or purchase what
26 they needed, plus access into it, Putin, et al just stole it all free, at the cost of a few score soldiers;
27 4. Today, Putins settlement is simple and effective and analogous to Gans in our cases 1) Accept
28 the status quo; 2) Learn to like it; 3) Dont expect any money from us because were going to spare
your lives; 4) You benefit overall from this transaction because although we are stealing about 1/20
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
358
1 of the best portion of your entire country, you will not be killed because we will stop our aggression
2 and return. To Remington, that is about as pure a form of racketeering extortion, which is
3 contemporary and well-known to all, as one could possibly find out there.
4 Analogously, WHAT GANS HAS DONE HERE IS VERY SIMILAR:
5 1. Beginning in 1998, Mathson and RAO invaded the Burl Trees land and took more than 1/3 acre
6 of its best land, which was proportionately double the size of the stolen Crimea area, in proportion
7 to the Burl Trees overall area;
8 2. For many years thereafter, Mathson and RAO, who are now controlled by Gans, continued
9 fighting, terrorizing and extorting Remington, by killing more than $100,000 of his rarest prize
10 plants, appropriated all his time and energies, and prevented any of his plans from being fulfilled
11 for many years;
12 3. Rather than honestly pay rent on or purchase the crucial land that defendants had annexed
13 adjacent to their backyard, they just took it free, laughed at Remington and proceeded to torture and
14 injure him for the last 10 years now wall Remington attempts to remediate and recover his land;
15 4. Very similar to Putins, Gans extortive settlement proposes that the entirely unacceptable status
16 quo become permanent. They propose: 1) We will keep all of your land free, which we now occupy
17 or have contaminated all the way down the mountain; 2) We do not buy the land, pay no present or
18 back rent and offer no reparations for any of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of various
19 physical damages to Remington, his land into his business, nor is there any offer to clean up the
20 contamination which now has prevented the marketing or sale of Remingtons entire estate. 3)
21 Finally, like Putin, all Gans offers from his side is that he agrees to stop his war on Remington and
22 the Burl Tree, disarm and call-off his destructive soldiers, and then not bill Remington for his
23 (Gans) damages, expenses and irritation in launching and maintaining his aggressive war in the
24 first place.
25 That bad extortive offer from Gans is unacceptable to Remington, and unquestionably if
26 Ukraine could file a RICO lawsuit or had any kind of legally forcible lawsuit against the major,
27 aggressive, treaty-breaking, nuclear BOMB wielding Russians, they would do so, because neither
28 situation is tenable or just in a civilized world.
4 further as it is employed against Remington as the Enterprises major weapon. Gans has
5 established an extortive racketeering enterprise intended to destroy Remington and the Burl Tree
and to appropriate his land, while THEY all make lots of corrupt money, just as with any typical
6
type of organized crime family or organization. Here, Gans extortion racket has been trying for
7
years to provide Remington with protection from John Mathsons, et al, CRIMES against
8
Remingtons land, business and all property at that location.
9
Gans and his soldiers have clearly defined the threat for years, and made it much easier for
10 Remington to settle or totally give-up, however Remington never takes the easy way out, and is
11 a hard, serious fighter and worker38.
12 Gans clearly defined extortion racket confronts Remington daily and it is held over his
13 head continuously, wherein, IN SUMMARY:
14 1) Defendants have established an 8 1/2+-year reign of terror from the above-described
15 vandalism, burglary, daily FEAR of same, and from Gans believably executed mayhem, and
16 probable ORDER to commit serious physical violence against Remington, at some point soon.
17 The BASIC POINT HERE IS: Gans has repeatedly throughout 2016 made it crystal
clear that HE controls all of the lawless mayhem, destruction, vandalism and thefts of Burl
18
Tree property obviously perpetrated by Mathson and his fellow soldiers at 832 Westgate Dr.,
19
and GANS can STOP IT, anytime.
20
Its just as simple as that. The mayhem, destruction, horrors and continuous anxiety will
21
continue at Gans discretion until Remington has given given-up just contamination lawsuits
22 and fully surrendered to the Enterprises objectives, which incidentally, is never going to
23 happen until Remington is killed.
24 Therefore, as explained several times above, the 35-40 members of this enterprise and whether
25 they are eventually fined and imprisoned, hangs in the balance of Gans and his several
26 psychopathic soldiers. If the hit order to snuff-out Remington, is given to one of Gans 3-4
38
27 Remington has worked hard and often alone since age 8, and a 110/day heavy paper route, the
Washington Star, where Sunday papers weighing several pound EACH, and had to be delivered in
28 ice, snow, and bad weather by thin-tired bicycle for years.
10 controllable by Gans, today, is not yet known or prove. If Remington was in this enterprise, hed
certainly want to find that out, as having Skillings being responsible for his being in or out of prison
11
would be unappealing;
12
13 2) Gans will gladly provide Remington protection and STOP Mathson, and his other
14 soldiers, IF Remington will give them Remingtons and the Burl Trees valuable estate, land,
15 inventory and business, that they seriously, permanently (at least that was their 1998 failed plan)
16 trespassed and encroached upon.
17 The Burl Trees ruined, encroached-upon land itself is now appreciating and worth at least
18 $120,000-180,000, however the more serious problem is the $300,000+ overall diminishment in
19 estate and land value, the $220,000+ and increasing BACK-RENT due, plus the related additional
20 costs, personal injuries and general damages, listed herein, related to the trespass and contamination
21 successive action lawsuits, and the other requested damages here.
22 3) The Burl Tree property has an annual water flow down Remington Creek of at
23 least 75,000,000 gallons of water per year, but appears to be on schedule to perhaps drastically
24 exceed that in 2016-17; but, however much it is in lost gallons, it is ALL now lost into Elk River
25 and the Ocean due to contamination and Remingtons inability to meet water ecoli and cleanliness
26 standards. That presently lost gallonage, at $6/1000 gallons is worth $450,000, with about $50,000
27 pumping, storage and overhead charges at the most. Remington could truck that water to Southern
28 Humboldt, or beyond or sell it locally, for little additional costs as independent contractor water
trucking charges are passed-on to the buyers.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
485
1 THIS IS A MAJOR ADDITIONAL BURL TREE DAMAGE, $400,000 PER YEAR!!
2 4) Gans extortion demands also have OTHER contingencies, codicils, terms and
3 unacceptable provisions, including that:
4 A) Remington DROP his demands for back rents;
5 B) Remington drop all his present and future lawsuits; and,
6 C) Drop his legitimate and mandatory DEMANDS for full insurance indemnity against future
7 clean-up orders from the down stream land owners, The County, State, Water Board, National Park
8 Service and/or the EPA.
9 5) In exchange for that, i.e., Remington withdrawing or forgiving at least $1 million of
10 overall diverse kinds of damages of many varieties, Gans says and infers that THEY will also drop
11 their future threatened malicious prosecution suits, costs, expenses and attorney fee demands,
12 which are NOT a BIG fear, candidly. So, Remington gets protection from the Enterprises
13 racketeers plus they wont barrage Remington with a new round of frivolous lawsuits until he is
14 dead and his heirs get tired of fighting.
15 Not much of a deal for Remington, and therefore unacceptable. Hence, here we are.
16 Hopefully we will stay and remain in federal court, however if not, these RICO charges are fully
17 transferable to the state system, however inadequate, after appropriate statutory violation
18 modifications and edits.
19 Gans total possible future demands and most optimistic returns in his best case scenario is
20 possibly $50-60,000 (although difficult to get any kind of a total) dropped in exchange for
21 Remingtons obvious slam-dunk measurable, visible ACTUAL contamination on and beneath the
22 ground, plainly visible on ground penetration radar and metal detection type equipment, and his
23 resultant just due damages of a minimum of $300-500,000 to as much as $3-4,000,000, if a jury
24 ever actually considers and accepts Remingtons view of these cases, or TREBLE damages are
25 applied to some of them under RICO. Possibly the next jury will consider Remington as a
26 sympathetic figure and the true good guy here which he is.
27 Remington also has many other ways of demonstrating and proving what has actually been
28 dumped here by defendants, which include the 2006-2012 dump photographs for Mathsons
extensive spoliation of some of the debris partially exposed at the surface, plus Remington has
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
486
1 extensive records of his hundreds of hand-excavations all over the dump and what they revealed, as
2 he has duly sworn to for years, in scores of pages of declarations.
3 Remington alleges Gans, RAO and defendants additionally violated 18 USC 1511, wherein
4 they risked prison for years with a gambling operation, meeting all definitions in that law. They
5 buried hazardous treasure, to them and it could be valued by what was paid them to get rid of it,
6 in the beginning, around 1998-2000, gambling that no one would discover it, but if they did that no
7 one could force to have it removed. So far, Olsons, Mathsons, Lawrences, Brissos and Gans
8 gamble has paid off big time! They have all hit the State regulatory casino jackpot super big, to
9 date, for more than $1 million of tax-free profits unknown to almost anyone except for
10 Remington and the RICO membership.
11 Now they are ALL still gambling that Remington will not be able to execute its removal, even
12 after its discovery, which is what these cases are now about. Defendants are still winning here
13 today, winning big, and they still hold an unbeatable house edge over the long term, however if
14 this RICO suit gets in the San Francisco federal court and stays there, the house cannot last for
15 long!
16 So far, RAO, Gans, Allied and Mathson are up at least a million dollars or possibly even 2-4
17 times more then that on their gamble, as though this were an Indian casino. However, ALLIED
18 INSURANCE and all of the RICO defendants, now continue to roll the dice and play their poker
19 hands or slot machines WITH that million dollars to attempt to double it or maybe LOSE IT ALL.
20 Well see. Maybe other alternatives will emerge in this Court if these cases are accepted here.
21 SIMPLY SUMMARIZED: DEFENDANTS EXTORTION RACKET FEARFULLY
22 THREATENS REMINGTON WITH the rather simple ultimatum: You drop your lawsuits, rent,
23 back rent, miscellaneous general and special damages, stigma, future indemnity and all cash
24 remediation demands, and WE WILL STOP OUR CONTINUOUS ALMOST DAILY COSTLY,
25 ANXIETY CAUSING criminal acts of vandalism (costing Remington well-over $100,000 alone, to
26 date); and also drop our cost, fee, punitive damages, slander, abuse of process, vexatious litigant
27 and malicious prosecution demands and/or likely future lawsuits.
28
25 fill. Gwinn used average depth measurements of about 12-18 inches because no SHN borings got deeper
than that. However, it was well known by everyone that no SHN boring reached native soils because every
26 single one of them hit giant concrete or asphalt debris so the holes had to be aborted. Whereas, when
Gwinn made the knowingly fraudulent assumption that every SHN boring went all the way through the fill
27 and therefore determined its depth, those fraudulent calculations were absurd because the fill was
approximately 6-15 feet deep in those same areas, according to our complex calculations and excavated
28 depth measurements, and therefore Gwinns entire volume calculation was wrong by a factor of 4-6 just in
the depth parameter alone! He also understated the area by 100 to 200% causing an overall multiplicative
error of 600-1000%, as explained elsewhere.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
503
1 possible41. As our new expert Dr. McEdwards says, we wont know for sure until we remove it and
2 count the loads, nor is it that important to know exactly how much is there now. The only thing that
3 is obvious today is that theres a huge amount there, millions of pounds of hazardous wastes, which
4 are contaminating the environment and the creek and all need to be removed.
5 b. Gans Enterprises experts have falsely sworn to gross understatements of the volume and
6 toxicity of the encroaching fill.
7 Generally on that topic, Gans has systematically used his 7-8 experts (including Pulley as
8 discussed above) plus 4-5 attorneys to consistently fraudulently understate the volume of their
9 gigantic encroachment in 1998, and to understate its toxicity and the type of hazardous wastes that
10 were dumped here, overall by a factor of at least 800-1000% as related to the volume, the toxicity
11 of its components, damages and more. For example, the proven and inferred amount of asbestos
12 pipe dumped here by defendants of more than 16,000 pounds, has been reduced by several of their
13 experts, in sworn (false) declarations, to essentially zero: Their primary, site investigating expert on
14 the topic Ferriman eventually concluded in his sworn statements that maybe there is one small
15 asbestos pipe fragment here, but were not even sure about that, because maybe that wasnt the one
16 that was tested.... In other words, maybe theres not even one, but NONE (asbestos)42.
17 41
1000 yd. is based largely on our new 5-foot deep boring described above which was also aborted on a
concrete or asphalt block, however we had initially calculated that the fill was only about 3-4 feet deep at
18 that downhill tree location. Now the inferred depth of the fill at that point is 6-8 feet deep which could
effectively at least double all of the volumes within about 50 feet of that boring. Our depth and volume
19 measurements are based on hundreds of individual data points including Remingtons hundreds of
20 excavations and John Aveggios superlative field estimating methods based on his 30 or so years of
relevant in the field volume estimating experience. Remington also had the benefits of extensively
21 studying the fill volume in the field for many years, and also used much more competent, precise and
lengthy diagrams and multiplicative methods which eventually added-up about eight different calculations
22 from 8 different complex volumes, which as a group encapsulated the entire dump, on this very steep and
irregular slope. Gwinn used a seventh grade, improperly-modeled, purported solid geometry method,
23 which erroneously assumed complete regularity and therefore made a single totally regular rectilinear
volume calculation, which was (laughingly and knowingly) totally invalid and useless on that irregular
24 terrain, as we will prove at the next trial, but it takes maybe an hour to explain using slides and/or to draw
25 it all on a blackboard.
42
Obviously, Gans coaches all enterprise experts to lie, mischaracterize and understate all of their
26 environmental pollution findings and/or observations. On delete, most of their experts have not even
visited the contaminated sites and therefore dont know what contamination exists or where. As explained
27 elsewhere for example Gwinn just sat in the shade 100-feet above the main contaminated water areas while
Remington, Gans and Ferriman went down and looked at it. Gwinn is Gans major credentialed-expert but
28 shows an amazing lack of interest in any contamination at the dumpsites whether hydrocarbon and sewage
in the waters or the asbestos all over the sites. At least hundreds of pages exist on this and related topics so
Gans, et al are all very well-aware of these allegations against them and him personally for coaching all
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
504
1 Unfortunately and absurdly for Gans expert family we can easily prove that Ferriman
2 personally saw and examined all 23 asbestos pipes which were visible on July 6, 2011. Remington
3 physically showed him and saw him examine all known pipes that day, and he personally
4 photographed at least half of them as he saw them, and those photographs are all in the record now.
5 Gans asked him to lie about all that but its not really possible now and therefore as discussed
6 above, it is very unlikely that either Ferriman or Gwinn will be willing or able to testify for Gans at
7 any trial, however they will be called by Remington, either way.
8 Over the last six years, Gans has knowingly and fraudulently put-forth those types of
9 obviously fraudulent expert understatements and misrepresentations as fact, and several Humboldt
10 County judges have assumed that it must be accurate if Gans presented it as such.
11 c. Gans Enterprises perjuring witnesses attempted to discard Remingtons entire lawsuit
12 by falsely swearing that Remington gave permission for said dumping and also reasonably
13 discovered or should have done so long before 2006-2008 and therefore the statute of
14 limitations ran on a permanent trespass allegation. Of course, Remington does not allege
15 permanent nuisance/trespass but continuing, however the present court has so far intimated
16 that it is going to improperly impede that prosecution, despite the fact that it is clearly proven
17 by the relevant, conclusive Supreme Court precedents that it is a jury matter to determine if
18 the encroachment of Remingtons property was continuing or permanent. Meanwhile,
19 Remington strongly believes that this case would be more competently and fairly handled in federal
20 court than in state, which is one of the reasons for filing this overall contamination and RICO action
21 initially in federal court.
22 Gans preeminent August 2016 SOL trial collusive, suborning of perjury in every trial
23 witness presented is actually a not very subtle and clever, corrupt device to accomplish each and
24 every one of the enterprises above-defined objectives. Simply put Gans script was written as: In
25
their experts to essentially mischaracterize their observations. That generalization applies to all site
26 contamination from lead, hydrocarbons and sewage and all the water below the dumpsites to the asbestos
and the fraudulent twin six-inch drains which have calm the focal point and/or poster child for Gans
27 experts fraud and knowing misrepresentations. Said twin pipes were sworn to drain the fill and be the
perfect test case for proving that the fill was benign; however, now it has been proven that said pipes are
28 solid and just channel above clean spring water under the toxic feel without ever touching any of it and
certainly no water is filtering down through the fill and into those pipes since their solid. This was and
remains a major fraud and a major weakness in Gans and his experts defense .
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
505
1 1998, Remington saw the encroaching fill, liked it, never complained about it at all, and then in
2 John Mathsons inimitable and ignorant words, he also added that Remington said: I aint got no
3 problem with it. During the next trial, that ignorant quote falsely attributed to the more erudite,
4 highly-educated, and much more articulate Remington, will definitely come back to haunt this
5 enterprise. That well-orchestrated perjury, backed-up with a badly instructed jury and the inferred
6 consent implied by 1-2 Remington visits, was all that Gans needed for a total victory in all cases,
7 theoretically, but, not in reality. In other words, the simple corrupt strategy above could have and
8 very nearly did result in the Enterprises achieving all seven (7) of their primary general goals
9 stated above.
10 Crime does not pay?, theoretically, although it very, very nearly could have here, and may
11 still prevail. Fortunately, Remington had the time in late 2016 to understand, research and think
12 about how to defend against Gans Enterprises Mafia -like ruthless treachery and continuous and
13 increasingly ominous criminal acts.
14 d. Evidence spoliation. Another primary and successfully executed Gans plan and method to
15 avoid all liability and all cleanup costs here, plus realizing all of the other objectives, was to order
16 soldiers John Mathson and all his primary helpers and family, including Skillings, Kishpaugh,
17 Randall, Hilfiker, Evans and Costa, et al, to not only terrorize Remingtons fences property and
18 peaceful way of life in all the ways complained about above, but here to specifically remove all
19 visible adverse materials that were visible on the surface of the dump, especially the numerous
20 excavated asbestos pipes, lead and other poisonous rusted metal objects, plastics, building
21 materials, rubber tires and other unsightly objects, which are clearly out of place in a near-Virgin
22 redwood forest.
23 The enterprises reasons for that superficial hazardous waste sites surface broom-sweep is
24 obvious and has been rather thoroughly explained above. Removing most or all of the incriminating
25 visual evidence makes conviction harder.
26 If a jury cant see the evidence because its invisible, buried or because some of it has already
27 been removed, how are they going to convict, especially where the enterprises perjuring
28 witnesses all say that they didnt remove anything and could not have removed anything,
because it was never there in the first place! All of the hundreds of photos which show a
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
506
1 contaminated hazardous waste dump there for many years mustve just been doctored or
2 something!!
3 Facing five or six smartly coached and directly lying and perjuring trial witnesses is a
4 rather formidable task, but were dealing with it, and intend to seriously impeach them at the next
5 trial, with a few more years of preparation. In federal court, after we go to the considerable trouble
6 and difficulty of proving perjury then at least there will be real penalties faced by the family
7 perpetrators.
8 Remington likes to use the analogy that: Had OJ removed the bodies and hosed-down the
9 Bundy crime scene sites a few hours thereafter, or in this case a few years later, it would have been
10 harder to show the jury conclusive visual or scientific evidence. Here, Gans has been able to
11 conceive of such a risky and unlikely plan because Remingtons key experts that would refute all of
12 that disingenuousness are now either: DEAD (SHNs Aveggio); Removed by corrupt inducements
13 and/or other interferences (SHNs Foget); Almost removed by technical legal trickery (Dr.
14 McEdwards); or improperly and unbelievably barred from testifying about that topic by a court that
15 has been making many odd and irrational rulings (Maje Hoyos). That essentially leaves only
16 Remington and his possibly (according to Gans deceitful commentaries) doctored photographs,
17 and Remingtons apparently somewhat unlikable and over-zealous and/or irritating attitude in the
18 court room (or whatever it is) while serving as a party and his own lawyer, makes refuting 5-6
19 perjurers difficult and maybe impossible, in some instances. THEREFORE, considering all of that,
20 Remington is gathering more witnesses and will use a trial attorney in the future as or if needed.
21 In conclusion as to this evidence spoliation point, Gans enterprise has cleverly determined,
22 planned and executed the false and fraudulent sales presentation to a jury that: If there is no
23 contamination visible on a contaminated piece of land because it is all invisible, deeply buried such
24 that none of it is visible on the surface, then said property is not really contaminated. A sale of a
25 clean, broom-swept looking wooded property as a contaminated property is a difficult sale to make
26 to a jury, when a snake oil salesman like Gans is saying that there is no contamination as your eyes
27 can plainly see.
28 In that case, it becomes largely a technical exercise in ground radar, metal detection below the
surface, the results of many hundreds of excavations, expensive time and training of independent
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
507
1 experts as to all details of the problem and perhaps most importantly the use of credible scientific
2 testing, presented by a credible expert with full explanations of why hydrocarbon, lead, asbestos
3 and E. coli/coliform bacteria are not visible on the surface of the dump or in the photographs, but
4 nevertheless are still there, STILL are a health hazard and definitely need to be removed.
5 e. Physically covering-up and concealing evidence. An additional aspect of Gans cover-up of
6 the evidence and minimization of the adverse impacts of the dump on Remington, is to
7 systematically cover-up several dozen huge contaminated reinforced concrete and asbestos blocks
8 which stick about of the ground and weigh up to 20,000 pounds each. Gans and Mathsons
9 minions, and RICO soldiers do that with various organic materials especially spreading redwood
10 needles by hand and planting lilies, nasturtiums, English Ivy and other types of weeds on the site to
11 effectively cover-up most of the largest most adverse looking wastes. As a not unexpected result
12 Gans corruption and deception has mostly worked in that the photos taken in 2016 show almost
13 nothing visible on the surface of the dump, whereas the 2008 photos show clear and unmistakable
14 massive volumes of buried waste which were exposed up to a foot or two at the surface.
15 On the positive side however, for Remington, is that comparing photos from the two years
16 2008 to 2016 we can see clearly and unmistakably that there has been drastic evidence tampering,
17 felony evidence spoliation, but possibly most importantly that under the important contamination
18 case, Field-Escandon, the drastic changes in the site over that time show and prove a continuing
19 nuisance, and which significantly, part of the definition is to vary over time. Thanks to Mathson,
20 Gans and their men, in addition to the natural physics of a super-steep mountain slope with heavy
21 erosion and wind forces, the site is now proven to be a continuing nuisance and trespass beyond
22 any doubt under all determinative Supreme Court case criteria, and most especially that: the sites
23 are reasonably remediable for reasonable cost in addition to varying over time, whether the state
24 court credits the water contamination tests or not.
25 f. Improperly influencing the initial and primary state trial judge or worse has also been an
26 enormous deleterious force on these cases, and still is. Now is not the proper or prudent time or
27 place to diplomatically dissect all of the problems and perceived state court-ruling errors that
28 have occurred here during 2016, however as objected to contemporaneously, and in the first state
depositions. John Mathson couldnt even do it three days apart in August 2016 when he
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
521
1 contradicted himself conclusively and severely at one point and Did not say what was on Gans
2 script and that that he directly and personally spoke to Remington himself TWICE on his
3 land in August 1998, but incriminatingly slipped and stated that he had heard that
4 Remington was there from someone else. That was conclusive proof of perjury, however when
5 Remington got the transcript and tried to explain it to the court and the jury, it was ineffective, and
6 no one seemed to care about that because their minds were already made up. With several years to
7 prepare and with a skilled defense attorney to assist him, Remington will do better with Mathson
8 and this co-conspiring bunch of bums and crooks at the next jury trial. Judge Reinholtsen, as
9 explained above, was very unhelpful to Remington on this issue and about all other trial matters, as
10 explained above. Had the court made any one of a dozen different rulings, the 2016 trial outcome
11 might well have been different. For example, had it allowed in the incriminating sworn defendants
12 Special Interrogatories, wherein Gans and Mathson did not disclose any part of their perjured 2016
13 trial testimony, because it was not even fictionally written until about a week before trial, or had
14 said court admitted any of Remingtons critical impeachment photographic exhibits, devastatingly
15 important and conclusive 2003 photographs which destroyed star witness Skillings testimony
16 110%, or had it admitted other Remington relevant artistic drawings, any one of those altered
17 rulings would have made a big difference.
18 5 (g). Explain how the predicate acts and incidents of criminal activity amount to,
19 or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.
20 1. Gans, Mathson and their soldiers vandalistic in criminal activity is a long-term
21 process that has been going on continuously for 8 years, and increased exponentially during
22 2015. Since its been working effectively and defendants have said that they are especially angry
23 right now, theres no reason to expect it to stop anytime soon. In fact, as explained above every
24 week or two the last break-in occurred only two days ago in mid-March, 2017. Perhaps if
25 Remington had ignored it or pretended that it was having no impact all along, possibly they would
26 have stopped it, however Remington has written extensively about it in declarations and amended
27 complaints, so that Gans knows That Remington is feeling the pain as intended, and if it keeps
28 working, and continues to torture Remington as planned, maybe it will eventually accomplish their
20 no formal superior-subordinate relationship need be proven nor does the order need to be in
writing and the relationship and process can be proven by circumstantial evidence, which we will
21
do here.
22
Generally, Gans RICO enterprise involved the plan or purpose and arrangements or
23
agreements between two or more persons to commit various crimes, and thereafter they did
24
commit those crimes in unison, which infers that plan. No other reasonable inferences are
25 reasonably possible from the evidence, which we have expressed here.
26 If Gans uses the same group to attack another person with a different objective, then a new
27 joint criminal RICO enterprise would be formed. Whether that has been done yet or in the past,
28 remains to be discovered.
10 which he paid. That means that Gans had effective power to control the perpetrators, and he also
had actual knowledge of the crimes being committed by Mathson and his Westgate gang.
11
Gans sometimes was an active direct and personal participant in some of these acts and was
12
a co- perpetrator at that time. Premeditation is present here and Mathson and the RICO defendants
13
were all informed, voluntary, willing, enthusiastic or zealous participants in the crimes.
14
Each of the named RICO defendants committed various specific crimes which is defined as:
15 the accused participation physically or otherwise directly in the material elements of a crime
16 provided for in the statutes through positive acts or omissions, whether individually or jointly
17 with others.
18 Gans planned and perpetrated Mathsons destructive acts of vandalism and property
19 damage against Remington with the clear intent to spread terror to Remington and his family.
20 Gans was also specifically and repeatedly put on notice of these crimes committed by his
subordinates over whom he had total control and he consistently for many years failed to prevent
21
the commission of these crimes or to punish Mathson or his co-perpetrators of which he had
22
knowledge. Conclusions of that type may rest entirely on inferences since Remington has no
23
witness testifying to hearing Gans issue such orders nor do any written orders exist.
24
Mens Rea is a relevant concept here and is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a
25 person must be in while committing a crime in order for it to be intentional. It refers to a general
26 intent to break the law or the premeditated plan to commit a particular offense. Gans Mens Rea is
27 relevant here and when he purposefully ordered Mathson to commit acts against Remington that
28 would make Gans culpable for and just as responsible, guilty and willful as the actual/actor of the
criminal act.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
581
Generally, Remington alleges that Gans planned the extortive racketeering against
1
Remington meaning that he designed the commission of a series of vandalistic crimes, at both the
2
preparatory and execution phases, and the actual criminal vandalisms actually committed within
3
that framework by others such as Mathson and Kishpaugh.
4
To assess the seriousness of the RICO act crimes against Remington, consideration must be
5 given to all of the factual circumstances. These circumstances may include the nature of the act or
6 omission, the context in which it occurred, the personal circumstances of the victim including age,
7 sex and health as well as the physical, mental and moral effects of the act upon the victim or his
8 family.
9 For crimes of persecution, harassment, vandalism or any of the crimes alleged against
10 Remington here, Remington must show that the RICO named defendant shared the common
harmful objectives and intent of the joint criminal enterprise. If the accused does not share the
11
enterprises intent, then he may still be liable as an aider and abettor if he knowingly makes a
12
substantial contribution to the crime.
13
A direct perpetrator/actor is another way to characterize the one, for example John Manson,
14
that conducts the crime, and there may be indirect perpetrators also involved, for example Costa
15 and Kishpaugh.
16 A person who orders, plans or instigates an act or omission with the awareness of the
17 substantial likelihood that a crime will be committed in the execution of that order, plan or
18 instigation has the requisite mens rea for establishing liability for said ordering, planning or
19 instigating, which means such awareness is regarded as accepting that crime, and in that regard
10 contribution of the other members of the group which is vital to facilitating the commission of
any given offense. Hence the moral gravity and culpability of such assistance and ancillary
11
participation is often no different from that of those that actually carry out the criminal acts in
12
question.
13
In our RICO enterprise case, there are perpetrators and accomplices which also blend-in
14
with co-perpetrators, and they all may be the same thing. In other words, often there's no such
15 thing as aiding and abetting a crime but that person should be regarded as having actually
16 committed that crime if participating in a joint criminal enterprise as a co-perpetrator. That is
17 because when a participant shares the purpose of the joint criminal enterprise as opposed to
18 merely knowing about it, he cannot be regarded as a mere aider or abettor to a crime
19 contemplated.
20 For one to be considered a co-perpetrator it suffices that there was an explicit agreement or
silent consent to reach a common goal by coordinated co-cooperation and joint control over the
21
criminal conduct. For this kind of co-conspiracy there is a known common purpose or plan which
22
is either implicit or explicit and therefore criminal responsibility may be imputed to all
23
participants within the common enterprise as a predictable consequence of the execution of the
24
common criminal design, and if the accused was either reckless or indifferent to that risk
25 Generally, defining individual criminal responsibility in the criminal enterprise the elements
26 which must be established are: 1) a plurality of persons; 2) existence of a common plan, design or
27 purpose which amounts to or involves the commission of a crime provided for in the statute; and
28 3) the participation of the accused in the common plan involving the perpetration of one of the
crimes provided for in the statute; 4) the shared intent between all the participants to further the
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
583
common plan or design involving the commission of a crime. The arrangement, which leads to
1
the commission of the crime by the enterprise, need not be an express agreement but may be
2
inferred from the fact that a plurality of people acted in unison.
3
The most important thing is to prove that the RICO participants were involved in the
4
system and had knowledge that it was intended to damage or defeat Remington in these
5 litigations, whereas actual knowledge of the details of the plan and proving a formal agreement
6 between all the participants to establish that objective is not important.
7 In order to be culpable as a RICO defendant there is no specific legal requirement that the
8 accused has made a substantial contribution to the joint criminal enterprise, in order to be
9 considered to be a co-perpetrator. It is sufficient for the accused to have committed an act or an
10 omission, which contributes to the common criminal purpose. Kvocka et al (appeals chamber)
Nor is a participant in a joint criminal enterprise required to be physically present when and
11
where the crime is being committed, but his guilt would be dependent upon the evidence.
12
What is important here is shared intent, and plaintiff must prove that the persons charged
13
including the principal offender or offenders had a common state of mind which was required for
14
that crime.
15 Unanimous agreement is not necessary, but some common intent to commit the crime
16 charged is needed. Intent can be inferred from knowledge of the crimes being perpetrated and
17 from continued participation in those crimes, however ultimately it depends in the final analysis
18 on the evidence and the specific circumstances of the case. Such intent may be proved either
19 directly or as a matter of inference from the nature of the accused authority and specific actions
10 see below for analysis of whether she is just as guilty as anyone else here.
A. The aider and abettor is always an assessory to a crime perpetrated by another person the
11
principle who here was primarily John Mathson and members of his Westgate gang;
12
B. In the case of aiding and abetting, no proof is required of the existence of a common
13
concerted plan let alone of the preexistence of such a plan. No plan or agreement is required and
14
the principle conceivably might not even be aware of an accomplices contribution, however in
15 this example Joy Mathson is known to have enthusiastically contributed to the planning;
16 C. The aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage or lend
17 moral support to the perpetrator of a certain specific crime which year was the wanton destruction
18 of Remington's gardens, business and residence, and that support had a substantial effect upon the
19 perpetration of the crimes. By contrast, in the case of acting in pursuance of a common purpose or
20 design, as Mathson did under Gans directions, it is sufficient for the participant to perform acts
that in some way are directed to the furthering of the RICO enterprises common plans and
21
purposes.
22
In this example of Joy Mathson, in order to be guilty of aiding and abetting the requisite
23
mental element must be shown that she had knowledge of the acts committed by the perpetrator
24
and was aware of the specific elements of his crimes.
25 Here, Joy Mathson also shared the mens rea of the principle, who here was mostly John
26 Mathson who physically carried-out numerous destructive crimes. However, in the case of Joy
27 Mathson she had a much broader knowledge of the entire Gans RICO enterprise objectives and is
28 known to have done her best to assist with the suborning of perjury with all of her friends along
Westgate Drive; and, therefore ultimately SHE should be found criminally responsible for all
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
585
of the RICO crimes committed against Remington in furtherance of Gans common
1
purposes, equal to a co-perpetrator.
2
In other words, overall Joy Mathson may be a mere aider and abettor of, or "accomplice"
3
(which is ordinarily considered to involve less culpability that an actual perpetrator) to some of
4
the local crimes against Remington; but, overall, and over an extensive period, She became
5 directly involved in all functions of the enterprise and since she not only had specific advance
6 knowledge of the crimes which the enterprise intended to commit against Remington, but she also
7 shared the intent of the joint criminal enterprise by the time of the 2016 SOL trial, she had
8 become a co-perpetrator, which status will continue into this federal case during discovery,
9 because presumably she will now lie about her total involvement in a federal forum, hence
20 commit such acts or had done so previously, and Gans had failed to take the necessary and
reasonable measures to prevent such acts in the future, or to punish the perpetrators, such as
21
Mathson and Kishpaugh for their previous crimes. That principle of individual criminal
22
responsibility of superiors for failure to prevent or punish crimes committed by their subordinates
23
is an established principle of international as well as domestic law.
24
The elements of this type of guilt against Gans are well-established under international law, and
25 are:
26 1. The existence of a superior-subordinate relationship;
27 2. The superior knew or had reason to know that the criminal act was about to be or had been
28 committed; and
10 actual authority would have to be assessed based on the reality of the actual authority that Gans
had over his men. Can they prove that they refused to obey any criminal orders, which Gans
11
issued? We presume not.
12
The most obvious proof of the superior-subordinate relationship between Gans and his men
13
would be shown by the formal hierarchical relationship between the superior and the subordinate,
14
and whether that relationship is direct or indirect. The permanence or length of time of the
15 command relationship is not important, but merely whether effective control of particular
16 individuals was exercised by Gans based on the control of actual monetary payments being made
17 and the promise of many more to come if the various perpetrators or RICO members continued to
18 properly follow orders essentially act and testify against Remington per RICO objectives.
19 Similarly, under requisite international legal principles, two or more superiors may be held
20 responsible for the same crime perpetrated by the same individual if it is established that the
principal offender was under the command of both superiors at the relevant time, which here
21
would include the entire Mitchell law firm leadership, any of which were capable of exercising
22
individual control over any specific RICO enterprise member. As to whether a specific superior or
23
member of the Mitchell law firm had the requisite level of control, that is a matter to be
24
determined on the basis of the evidence presented in this case at trial.
25 Gans can be proven to have had actual knowledge of Mathsons criminal acts because he is
26 geographically close to the sites and frequently visits those sites to supervise Mathsons crimes
27 and other works. Circumstantial evidence of Gans actual knowledge that his subordinates were
28 committing or were about to commit a crime includes: the number, type and scope of the illegal
acts, the time during which the illegal acts occurred, the number and types in scope of illegal acts,
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
587
the time during which the illegal acts occurred, the number and types of RICO members and the
1
logistics involved, geographical location of Mathsons destructive acts, and whether the
2
occurrence of the acts is widespread and similar to other alleged virtually identical acts.
3
Did Gans have "reason to know" that his RICO soldiers were committing or about to
4
commit various crimes against Remington? The answer to that is obviously yes, because
5 Remington went out of his way to complain about Mathson's destruction of his property and
6 gardens in virtually every declaration and amended complaint filed in these cases since at least
7 2012. That had to put Gans on notice of all of the destructive acts by Mathson and his gang
8 including the severity and frequency thereof. Gans not only had general information but very
9 explicit and specific information of most of these criminal acts by Mathson.
10 In other words, Gans has always had the power, duty, ability and the knowledge to prevent
Mathsons criminal acts against Remington, but he failed the take necessary and reasonable
11
measures to prevent the commission of numerous crimes or to punish Mathson for the acts which
12
only he could have committed.
13
Overall, the above considerations would make Gans the co-perpetrator in all of the
14
Mathson crimes to which Gans acquiesced and had continuous actual direct and future advance
15 knowledge thereof, or should have had reason to know. Additionally, Gans had the obligation
16 under all types of criminal, civil and humanitarian law to attempt to prevent crimes being inflicted
17 upon Remington and therefore had a responsibility to control the acts of his RICO members,
18 however here he failed to act, investigate or make any effort to stop Mathsons crimes, and is
19 therefore culpable, which facts need to be taken into consideration at the punishment stage.
20 Additionally, at the punishment stage there are MANY and numerous other factors to
consider which go beyond the scope here.
21
22
23 (5) The final category of 6 (f) is entitled passive instruments. That term is imprecise and
24 certainly not clear here. RICO enterprise members who are not perpetrators or leadership
25 members of the Godfathers inner circle, might be construed as passive instruments, however,
26 as alluded to above, it is hard to make a class of such members. Some of the members may not be
27 facilitators ordinarily, but might initiate, support or facilitate RICO enterprises criminal acts or
28 other valuable enterprise services against Remington and in pursuit of the Enterprises purposes and
objectives, at times.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
588
1 Using a conventional and imprecise definition, which would include being a definite RICO
2 member or associate that does not do and has not done anything especially illegal or important, the
3 following names would therefore become potential non-leaders, non-criminal executors (yet) or
4 strict followers. This list which was eventually about 15 is now reduced to close to zero because
5 upon analysis, some of the more benign and passive followers who clearly are just regurgitating
6 Gans orders and probably initiating little or nothing themselves, still would appeared to be just as
7 guilty as a supervisor at Auschwitz who is merely following orders, but history has determined
8 should have not followed their criminal orders, and done something more morally correct.
9 For example, Jon Kishpaugh, Joy Mathson, Brian Gwynn, Costa, Julie McBride (Gans
10 Secretary), Peter Esko, Kloppell, Mischa Schwartz and possibly Marcy Conn were likely just
11 following illicit and corrupt orders from Gans, which does not appear to exonerate them and make
12 them bona fide passive instruments. Is committing intentional fraud or state perjury really
13 passive? See 5 pages above for more up-to-date analysis from March 2017.
14 The only truly passive, non-complicit, non-assisting, non aiding and abetting RICO
15 enterprise members, or at least potential ones that Remington can identify today include: Boyd
16 Davis Public Works Director of the City of Eureka in 1998; Mike Pulley, Paul Dalka and Mark
17 Hubbard. This group of four have a distinct, but so far non-criminal involvement here, and are so
18 passive (to date) that they are not presently named as RICO defendants, or even potential
19 defendants, at all for a variety of reasons mostly explained above, and three of the four additionally
20 involve statute of limitations issues.
21 In the special and so far unique case of Mike Pulley, discussed at length above, we need
22 further discovery as to how far he is going to to go towards corrupting himself on Gans behalf.
23 In his limited appearance in August 2016 he testified rather forthrightly, and acknowledged
24 what he did himself and what he was told to say or write by Gans and Mathson. Remington has no
25 quarrel with that. Honest facts and truthful testimony is what Remington wants and its hard to
26 commit a federal crime when one just tells the truth and otherwise does the right thing. Hence he
27 is now in the ambiguous and nebulous position of being a Gans associate, important foundational
28 witness and/or even a borderline RICO enterprise member, but one that is not yet guilty of any
crime other than by being associated with Gans corrupt organization. When questioned about his
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
589
1 borderline unethical extent of the fill lines on his chart, he freely admitted the truth of where he
2 got his data and that was reasonable and sufficient. Remington obviously has plenty more to say on
3 the above, and all of these named defendants, borderline defendants who are involved deep enough
4 here to be construed as RICO enterprise members, but as explained, each individual has different
5 culpabilitys here and just by being associated with the enterprise and its criminal or innocent
6 activities does not in itself make anyone guilty of anything. Therefore, Remington presently draws
7 the line of brevity, right about here.
8 Other possible or ostensibly passive instruments here might include some of the testing
9 technicians with unknown names, and inferred RICO members such as Chris Watt of LACO
10 Engineering; Mike Retzloff, Gary Evans, Harold Hilfiker, Jason Eads, Mike Foget, Kiff Analytical,
11 Cal Science Environmental and Mickee Kishpaugh.
12 For this document, those named in the above paragraph are deemed to be present or likely
13 planned future passive instrument members of Gans RICO enterprise. That temporary and rather
14 arbitrary decision today is based on our present quite limited information and discovery and the
15 fact that most of those named in the above paragraph have not yet even testified, or made any
16 statements, declarations or put any known opinions into these cases. They are all involved in the
17 cases and the majority of them have been scheduled to testify or potentially testify in Gans defense
18 to Remingtons contamination cases. Chris Watt and Mike Foget are exceptions to that which were
19 discussed above and need not be repeated here, but they are likely to appear in some capacity at
20 future trials, on one side or another.
21 6 (g) State how each defendant participated in the direction of the enterprise, from
22 2012 through January 2017.
23 The primary overall RICO enterprise directing managers are Gans, Brisso, Lawrence and
24 Olson operating through Skillings. Mathson is also an important supervisor of his local group of
25 friends, perpetrators and gang members but does little if any planning, instigating or ordering
26 without a direct order from Gans.
27 Gans is the managing, hands-on CEO, or more aptly the general with effective control over
28 his entire RICO hierarchy, and does an estimated 85% of all enterprise decision-making, although in
frequent consultations with chief Lieutenant Plotz and overall general (or Fuhrer, perhaps),
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
590
1 BRISSO. Although much more discovery is necessary in order to make these estimates numerically
2 valid or provable to a jury, nevertheless at this time Remington estimates that chief accomplice, aider
3 and abettor and financier, Lawrence perhaps does about 5% of any actual determinations of what
4 insidious work the enterprise should attempt next against Remington; whereas, primary active
5 perpetrators Olson and Skillings, perhaps do as much as 5% of any actual planning and premeditated
6 independent actions, and BOTH Mathsons together might initiate independent criminal actions
7 against Remington, is development and fenced property about 5% overall. In other words,
8 occasionally someone other than Gans will do something independently on behalf of the RICO
9 enterprise, but that would be RARE, especially since late 2015.
10 All of the other enterprise members,Associates and likely soon to become members,
11 including BOTH Mathsons are believed to be almost entirely non-directing passive soldiers,
12 accomplices, aiders and abettors, and a few are also major acting perpetrators, such as John
13 Mathson. These other enterprise members, associates and aspiring RICO apprentices (such as
14 Plotz) do their perpetrating usually ONLY after Gans gives orders, and they rarely if ever do
15 anything on their own initiative without Gans legal cover and protection. However, for every rule
16 there are always some exceptions. In the real world, all humans and soldiers at all levels of any
17 bureaucracy, obviously make their own small decisions, just not the big deliberate ones which
18 involve knowing and planned criminal predicate acts. It is presently beyond the scope to determine
19 which RICO decisions today would be considered small or big and deliberate.
20 However, all members of this enterprise are capable of criminal activity either by accident or
21 by their execution or association with some Gans order, response to a corrupt email or phone call
22 (wire fraud) or letter (US mail fraud), always ALL paid for by Lawrence. Obviously there are now
23 hundreds of individual complex cases and some of which may even have initially been a lawful
24 order, or a mailed scope of their intended work or research, but which work or act accidentally
25 (or on purpose from Gans cunning and deceptions) became corrupt. None of that is surprising now
26 because the vast majority of all Gans litigatory activities against Remington now in all cases have
27 become more criminal than ordinary and honest. Remington could cite numerous examples that
28
10 damages deriving from the Figas threats and intimidation on pages 12-13; various types of land
11 injuries on pages 15-16; Gans related damaging rackets on pages 23-26; SHN caused damages on
12 page 53, etc. The main complaint describes other kinds of damages throughout and especially in its
13 last section. [Those page numbers were accurate several months ago and cannot be confirmed today
14 due to excessive crashing of this program when several hundred pages are toggled at once].
15 Here at this section therefore we will summarize most of them only.
16 A. Defendants have effectively and permanently stolen about 1/3 acre of Remingtons land.
17 As explained above, more than one third of an acre of Remingtons property has been directly
18 impacted by defendants dumped and buried hazardous materials and scores of other adverse toxic
19 and contaminated materials which are specifically named throughout the complaints, and are well-
20 known to all defendants. The gigantic reinforced concrete blocks up to 20,000 pounds are also
21 highly objectionable in their own right as ugly and immovable boulders in the middle of
22 spectacular rose and exotic plant gardens, under the spectacular canopy of a pristine and near-virgin
23 redwood forest.
24 Additionally, at least acre overall on Mathson side of Remington Creek, including all
25 land directly downhill from Mathson landfills have been seriously damaged and substantially
26 ruined, user directly by contaminated soil migrations and slides or from the various types of
27 contaminated water reaching there by gravity flow.
28
appropriate time.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
663
According to the above calculations, the enterprise directly reduced Burl Tree retail sales by
1
about $368,000, and wholesale sales by a total of more than $500,000, for a total of $868,000,
2
according to proofs. About $850,000 of that loss would have been in interstate commerce.
3
Not a major drop to the US GNP or world economy, but very major and catastrophic to
4
Remington, his family and the Burl Tree plus thousands of deleteriously affected customers, USA
5 and world-wide.
6 Additionally, there is some subjective overlap between the estimates at letters F and G above
7 regarding total estimated Burl Tree sales, profits and balanced by estimated lost wholesale sales for
8 burl and related products, and the possibility exists that some individual, small wholesale or jobber
9 sales might be made-up sometime in the future.
10 This is admittedly a complex and somewhat subjective calculation and in any case Remington
would not expect to be double compensated for his time conducted drafting and executing legal
11
documents, such as they are, and also for lost Burl Tree sales, when or if those lost sales were being
12
compensated at some lesser legal rate. In other words, Remington often makes hundreds of dollars
13
(or more) per hour working in the burl industry, but would not expect to make more than $35-75 per
14
hour as a legal worker, although by most objective measures, Remington should be worth as much
15 as Plotz, to say the least.
16 H. Finally, Remington does have numerous other categories of damages especially
17 general damages for personal injuries and various types of emotional damages including those
18 which are specifically recoverable under trespass, as delineated elsewhere, and All damages are
19 most completely listed at the end of the main federal complaint.
20 16. Describe the relationship between the alleged injuries and violation of the
21 RICO statutes. Gans RICO racketeering enterprise has caused many additional damages and
22 also substantially aggravated the initial contamination damages alleged since 2006-2008.
A. Initial contamination injuries. The primary initially alleged injuries to Remington and
23
the Burl Tree during the 2005- 2012 period, were exclusively caused by the original environmental
24
violations as addressed in the earlier state cases and now in the primary federal complaint here;
25
however, since about 2012-13, the RICO violations have augmented, perpetuated and otherwise
26
greatly increased the above damages and made remediation much harder, and much more costly,
27 for example because additional debris continuously slides further down the mountain, some of
28 which is now out of reach of any machinery near the top of the mountain, and even from the bottom
of the mountain. Whereas the middle of the mountain is entirely inaccessible to large excavators,
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
664
backhoes or any machinery. Therefore, some debris will now have to be removed from the creek
1
and its environs by hand and packed-out to the bottom excavator landing area, above the swamp.
2
Additionally, as complained herein numerous additional severe damages of all types have occurred
3
to the Burl Tree property and to Remingtons personal health, which damages will have to be
4
carefully differentiated and divided between the contamination allegations and the RICO claims.
5 Remediation of the lower swamp area along the Ridgewood right-of-way, has therefore also
6 become necessary and will increase the overall costs substantially, because a separate landing and
7 road off of Ridgewood Drive will now be necessary, in addition to moving about 100 major trees
8 and plants; plus, at least two enormous logs will now need to be sawed-up and/or removed.
9 B. Additional and aggravated injuries caused by the RICO enterprise. Ascribing specific
10 economic damages to specific RICO crimes or individually violated predicate acts is somewhat
difficult, subjective, and will need to be further specified, identified and better quantified in the
11
FAC. The next several years of discovery will also be needed to fully clarify this issue before trial,
12
but nevertheless Remington will now attempt to make the best possible estimates, at this time.
13
C. Renz decision is now vitally needed here. Without a formal Renz decision as explained in
14
the next paragraph below, not even a valid approximate guesstimate is possible, as any of the below
15 subtotals could double or triple over several years, while awaiting a trials, appeals and beyond.
16 ONLY after substantial discovery, proofs one or more trials in either state or federal venues,
17 and very importantly a final RENZ (Renz v. 33rd District agricultural Association,1995, No.
18 H011907, Sixth district) ruling48 is issued for one or both courts, which effectively will determine
19 in what years, and how far into the future damages can be recovered, will we really be able to
6 leading to garden foliage damage and killed roses and trees: Misdemeanor: $53,000
10 7. Lower slide damages, below dumps since 2012: $6000 and increasing annually
11 8. Upper slide damages, attributable to Randall, Figas and Marsh extortions: $22,000
13 irrigation systems, vehicles, etc., attributable to Mathson and his gang of hoodlums: $15,000
14 10. Additional Remington paralegal time and costs, $25/hour x 2000: $50,000
15 11. Increased administrative costs, supplies, printers, computers, remote storage: $17,000
16 12. Greatly enhanced security measures of all types as previously outlined: $9000
17 13. Lost ANNUAL water sales from Remington Creek (3 years), if captured and pumped
18 for $50,000 and delivered to Garberville-Redway, CA for drinking and irrigation: 3 X $400,000
19 Those damages alone, which increase noticeably every month, were caused directly by Gans
20 deliberate, prolonged and criminalized defense tactics approximately 2011, but herein we only seek
21 recovery under RICO for the past four (4) years. These damages were last estimated during
22 November 2016, and as predicted in the previous sentence have all increased, and none appear to
23 have decreased.
17. List the damages sustained by reason of the violation of section 1962,
24
indicating the amount for which each defendant allegedly is liable.
25
#15 & #16 above list most of the major types and categories of damages which
26
Remington herein alleges were directly and objectively CAUSED BY, or otherwise
27
attributable to defendant 1962 (c) & (d) violations, as opposed to the dozen or more cited
28
20 Allied insurance would appear to be responsible for approximately $450,000 of that sum; whereas,
the RAO, Olson, Skillings, Kluck and their insurers portion of an $850,000 judgment would
21
therefore be approximately $400,000, at least. That is what Remington would judge today, and that
22
could be backed up with a 50-page additional analysis which is omitted here but includes the
23
immense costs and difficulties Remington has been subjected to from the Mathson-Gans faction
24
since 2006, but also factors-in the enormous illegal and unjust profits which Olson, Skillings and
25
49
The last time Remington used actual numerical dollar estimates was during October 2016, which numbers used
26 herein are merely exemplary of. Remington has made actual dollar estimates repeatedly in jury instructions before
trials and in several amended complaints, including this main federal complaint. No one has ever seemed to take
27 those estimates seriously, and since they are constantly revised and will be again before or after any trial in these
matters and especially after a RENZ decision, Remington declines to revisit all the raw data and estimates today.
28 Probably Remington suggest put down around number and millions of dollars or leave it entirely up to the court or
jury, according to proofs, however that is not Remingtons way and he prefers to provide objective subtotals which
when corrected or adjusted at some point, by a judge or jury, would lead to a valid recoverable total dollar amount.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
668
RAO are known to have recovered, in the low to mid-seven-figure range. During discovery, and
1
when and after Kluck, Olson, Skillings and their insurer become actually active here in defending this
2
case, and thereby join Gans RICO racket as expected, these above numbers are going to change
3
dramatically, but how remains to be seen.
4
The RAO defendants should be forced to disgorge most if not all of their unjust profits, which
5 request is very specifically and emphatically made in DR140426 at Judge Reinholtsens 2015
6 recommendation under RESTITUTION. If this environmental case goes to trial prior to DR140426
7 which is reasonably likely, Remington would then emphasize the restitution count from the state
8 cases, HERE.
9 4. Further, regarding WHO should pay Remington a $1.6 million dollar judgment, before
10 they pay their fines and serve their time? In late 2016, Remington viewed that approximately
as follows:
11
A. Gans personally: $700,000;
12
B. Linda Lawrence personally50: $150,000;
13
C. John Mathson: $300,000;
14
D. Olson and/or RAO: $200,000;
15 E. Skillings: $50,000;
16 F. Plotz and Brisso: $100,000 (Plotz: $80,000, Brisso $20,000);
17 G. Other named defendants, and close associates, including McBride, Randall, Nelson,
18 Kishpaugh, Costa, etc: About $100-200,000 between them, perhaps reducing Gans culpability by
19 potentially $100,000 if the facts so indicate that most of these scheming co-conspirators and perjurers
20 did so willingly and enthusiastically. Kluck, RAOs insurer and even Skillings culpability and
financial responsibility are now not fully determinable, and if Skillings were to kill or seriously injure
21
Remington that would very literally change everything in all of these cases51,, as indicated above.
22
On the other hand, if a RICO judgment happened to be $1 million higher, then Remington
23 50
Arguably, and increasingly apparent into April 2017, perhaps Lawrences culpability above should be
24 at least tripled right now based on pre-discovery conceptualization. Also, McBride could have a gigantic
influence on Gans, may have egged-him-on and motivated him to the point where it is easy to conceive
25 that McBride plus Lawrence might be liable for as much as 50-80% of whatever guilt Gans is assigned by
a jury. Clearly, substantial discovery is now needed on both of those women, plus Joy Mathson and Olson.
26 51
Murder and many of the possible brutal racketeering acts that someone such as Mathson or Skillings might
undertake are generally not federal predicate acts under civil RICO, which one might intuitively infer would lead to
27 a much higher monetary recovery here. Therefore, even if Gans orders his fellow RICO defendants to do their worst
and get rid of Remington and this entire case the easy way, that would not necessarily lead to increase monetary
28 recovery for Remingtons heirs or the lawyers which would finish this off. In other words, a lot that is BAD can
happen in the next several years, and presumably plenty of that will occur, so final damages and who owes what
percentage of those damages is obviously very premature today.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
669
would assign Gans about another $700,000 from that second or third million, and add similarly
1
proportionate much lesser amounts to the others named herein. In other words, Gans is arguably, at
2
this time at least as guilty as all the rest of the enterprise members put together. If a RICO judgment
3
was doubled, then Gans would be reasonably judged by Remington, to be twice as responsible and
4
culpable as all the rest of the enterprise members put together. Finally, on a billion-dollar
5 judgment, Remington would judge Gans culpability as being about 90% of the total judgment, and
6 the rest no more than 10%, at least based on facts known today. However, see March footnote
7 number 50 above for possible massive possible redistributions of blame after a few more years of
8 discovery into some of the substantially unknown figures in the RICO enterprise, especially the
9 three women named above. Women, today deserve equal treatment with men, and heretofore
10 they have somewhat slipped-under the radar, but are known to be extremely prominently
influential here.
11
Why is, or was, Gans assigned 90% total responsibility, at least prior to exhaustive
12
discovery on the above women plus Plotz, Brisso and a few others? Simply put, without Gans
13
there never would have been any RICO enterprise in the first place, and quite possibly many
14
present members have tried to discourage him and revert back to a legitimate defensive advocacy
15 here. If facts of that nature are discovered, obviously that will also drastically change the above
16 estimated and projected culpability assignments above.
17 Arguably, Gans is 100% responsible for Remingtons RICO damages; however, in view of
18 the extreme cooperation and very enthusiastic, zealous assistance Gans received from many of the
19 RICO racketeering members, Most especially from Lawrence, Plotz, Brisso and both Mathsons,
20 as specified above in perhaps excessive detail, there is obviously plenty of guilt and financial
responsibility to distribute, as above.
21
Just saying, and projecting based on present information. Thats what Remington would
22
proclaim today if he were judging this case after a large positive verdict, taking several more years.
23
However, a few years from now the discovered facts, evidence and anticipated additional serious
24
federal predicate acts will be very different and blame, and resulting punishments, such as fines,
25 imprisonment or the financial responsibility to reimburse Remington specific monetary
26 damages, would therefore, accordingly, be assigned very differently, by a trier of fact.
27 18. List all other federal causes of action, if any, and provide the relevant statute numbers.
28 The accompanying federal environmental complaint answers this question in great detail, with
all statute numbers. For the simple and most concise answer, see the cover of said federal complaint.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
670
19. List all pendant state claims, if any.
1
2 Again, see accompanying federal complaint for a wide variety of pendant state claims which
3 includes some, but not all of the pending state claims in Remingtons two open state continuing
nuisance/ trespass successive action lawsuits, DR080678 and DR140426. For now, said
4
contamination portion of this federal complaint adequately summarizes the salient Remington
5
pendant state claims, and if any are missing or incomplete as presented in the State Court,
6
Remington will duly note that with appropriate revisions in his FAC.
7
Both of those state cases are now in limbo with no apparent qualified or available judge to
8 expedite or to even oversee both of said cases. That may have somewhat changed by April 2017,
9 however Remington is never received anything during 2017 from Judge Wilson who is at least
10 inferred to be now handling DR 140426, whereas Judge Reinholtsen now has DR 080678, under
11 advisement for some kind of decision as to what the next step is and Remington strongly anticipates
12 the worst and that he intends to quick-kick the case to the appellate court next, for serious study
13 and guidance of the obvious case law which governs it, which he does not seem to have the time or
the predilection to properly understand and apply. Remington has or will be requesting that both of
14
Said above named state cases be stayed pending results in this action, however what exactly occurs
15
with three cases up in the air, and which case falls to the ground first or takes Positive hold
16
somewhere, and actually proceeds towards or to resolution, is presently unknown. All that is known
17
for sure is that the enterprise will strongly oppose any of these federal cases going forward even for a
18 week, if they even decide to answer this complaint at all, let alone until a federal dismissal hearing
19 or beyond.
20 Gans and his RICO enterprise of course with their unlimited resources will vehemently
21 SUPER-oppose this action, in particular because they have at least one state judge very inferentially
22 under their influence, plus at least one crooked Humboldt County Superior Court state file room
23 saboteur to also further their criminal objectives.
In other words, Gans racketeering enterprise will desperately oppose this action like it was
24
World War III and IV combined! Thats fine, because Remington has nothing but time to oppose them
25
nowadays, with everything else in his life totally on hold, and still functioning. Remington is still
26
sleeping fine and eating great, and now even getting enough exercise to stay healthy.
27
Those two extremely powerful, valuable factors or weapons alone will cause Gans to argue
28 almost to the death to shut this federal action down, including this viable RICO cause of action. If,
10 appellate federal judge than mental focus and concentration in their endless difficult reading,
comprehension of complex detail in totally unfamiliar disciplines, and their continuous multi-
11
houred study sessions while attempting to understanding abstract case issues in terms of
12
specific laws, from invariably badly-written legal documents, written by idiots with either too
13
little or too much detail, and usually no photographs?
14
Suppose the above analogy was altered to involve 10 dogs running-around the corridors of
15 the courts office building during the day, barking at anyone that moved about? Or, how about three
16 young children racing, thundering and laughing down the judges hallways, how would that work,
17 almost every day, year after year?
18 Obviously, at some point the person controlling those disturbances, whether actually occurring
19 at a given hour, or whether they occur often enough that said judges our continuously wondering if
20 or when the disturbance will start up again, has actual real serious control over you and HERE
Gans and his enterprise understands and then intentionally perpetuates that control, almost daily. At
21
the courthouse, there are security gates and guards and plenty of employees to deal with these
22
issues, however suppose you are a one-man operation with no security gates or employees to deal
23
with these issues, such as Remington is in his secured offices and vast yard. Here, when or if the
24
police are called there is a too long and several our distracting wait, with nothing for them to see if
25 they ever do get here, because the animals are hidden, gone or have disappeared back through
26 Mathsons secret doors or holes, which holes if made in the middle or bottom of Remingtons
27 fences, as soon as they are discovered, they need to be immediately and urgently plugged-up to
28 prevent a dozen more deer per hour from entering, where each deer can potentially cause several
hundred dollars of rare plant damages in one night.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
680
F. This is the point. Concentration and mental focus are absolutely crucial to a judge,
1
lawyer and believe it or not, concentration, peace of mind and clear mental focus is obviously
2
just as important, if not more so to an older, 75 year older, non-lawyer litigant who has to
3
research and learn each of these issues and read at least 10-20 of the correct conclusive cases daily,
4
understand them, and take notes on them, one by one as though he was 22-years old in law school.
5 There are those that think that method is a better way of learning to be a lawyer than actual law
6 school, especially 20-solid years of intelligent reading, with plenty of practical application and with
7 good retention, but thats another topic for another document.
8 Little else around here or THERE is more important than peace, quiet, with a proper
9 environment for continuous full and deep mental concentration, and many years ago Gans and
10 Mathson, et al figured that out, especially around major document deadlines, and so they have
impeded and obstructed Remingtons ability to work properly here, for years. As discussed above,
11
set-up a final deadline for a summary judgment opposition filing, and invariably since about 2011,
12
for the two prior days Gans makes sure its like a veritable zoo around here with noise,
13
snorting, blurred running motions, major property being destroyed while Remington works, which
14
also makes it somewhat hard to concentrate.
15 Think of it this way. That would be similar to a judge in San Francisco knowing and hearing
16 his fancy super-expensive, too valuable to be insured car being slowly destroyed by animals or
17 someone with a hammer, and then just having to ignore what it knew was going on outside, in order
18 to meet some deadline, which deadlines are probably less stringent to a federal judge than to a
19 litigant, especially one in Pro per. Pro pers have to worry about being thrown-out of court for any
20 minor technical transgression, no matter whose fault it was.
Anyway, that distracting activity described-above which Gans perpetrates upon Remington
21
very regularly at major deadlines or during the recent jury trial, which requires many hours of
22
sophisticated and clear preparation, to Remington, is no different than a pack of crazed animals
23
running around the corridors of the San Francisco courthouse. Remington believes that it is real
24
creative, actual damaging extortion, as explained above, that is serious to Remington and
25 therefore it is one of the issues in this litigation.
26 Defendants clearly intend to continue their extortive activities until all of their RICO
27 objectives have been reached, andUntil they have obtained most or all of Remingtons property
28 without any cost to themselves. Removing or stealing a judges or litigants ability to concentrate
on abstract complex legal issues is a true threat, and a legitimate damage, once it is properly
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
681
understood. It is a federal crime, and also directly causes business property damage because if
1
Remington cannot concentrate on his legal work, he cannot do any significant business activities
2
either. The case law clearly shows that extortion takes many forms and can be various types of
3
coercion, threat of physical harm to the person or family and also it can be merely causing the
4
stress of mind, which can include the fear of crime, Fear of suffering financial loss, Fear of
5 becoming so distracted and angry that no useful work of any kind can be accomplished, and the
6 realistic fear of vandalism, especially where those fears are properly and validly justified, by their
7 continuous and daily occurrences. Here, those occurrences are obviously well-known to defendants,
8 who were involved with Remington for three hours per morning in 2016 pretrial hearings, but who
9 always were able to easily make it known in various ways with their blatant, unbroken stares that
10 they are or were (in real time) causing Remington significant harm, torment and obviously loving it
and laughing about it quite indiscreetly. Remington being a rather observant, sensitive and
11
introspective man was able to watch Gans, Mathson and Plotz daily for effectively six (6)
12
consecutive months in Judge Reinholtsens department eight court room, while they very carefully
13
observed him several times each morning to see how how he was sleeping and specifically reacting
14
to their carefully orchestrated tortures on a given day, and also to evaluate whether he was feeling
15 the irritation, anxiety or real-time anger from their destructive forces, that they had just let-in to
16 Remingtons property that very morning, while Remington was away at his residence getting a
17 good nights sleep for the trial hearings.
18 Additionally, related to the above vandalisms and defendants RICO crimes, is that virtually
19 all of the major vandalisms occur from on Mathsons land and from doubly fenced-in areas, which
20 are well-patrolled by Mathsons gang of vicious, incessantly barking guard dogs, which only the
Mathsons and Kishpaughs have access to, and no one else on this earth. Therefore, when the fence
21
is broken or and attack comes from Mathsons double fenced in land, it does not take a brilliant
22
genius to deduce who did the crime, when John Mathson and some of his gang are the only people
23
on earth that would have the nerve or ability to break-down cut Remingtons fence in that area,
24
without risking getting shot and killed by Mathson or his men.
25 2. Additional discussion of and in anticipation of what Gans personal defense and
26 specific denials will be regarding his violations of federal RICO predicate acts.
27 As explained above with considerable particularity, like any thoughtful and cerebral white-
28 collar criminal, who thinks he is too smart to be caught, Russell Gans will deny all allegations
without swearing to anything and then blame Remington for all evil and problems in the world.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
682
Knowing Gans all-too-well, MUCH too well, for a full 10 years now, there is absolutely no
1
doubt that he will claim that he is innocent of all of these charges, he is not a crook any more
2
than Nixon was, and in fact it is, believe it or not, actually Remington, himself that is a crook,
3
who made up all of these allegations because he had nothing else to do for the last six months.
4
It was obviously Remington who committed all of the unlawful acts here, Gans false premise
5 logic will begin, because he also had access to his own property, so obviously it was Remington
6 who deliberately destroyed his own gardens, windows and business property, more than $100,000
7 of rare plants which he personally hand-planted, laboriously nurtured, hand-carried in the mulch
8 and fertilizers for thousands of plants far-down the mountain on difficult trails, watered them by
9 hand-carried 5 gallon buckets in many cases, after he had done massive clearing and development
10 of the land in the first place, on literally as difficult and inhospitable terrain, as any beyond-rugged
land that was ever cleared any time and anywhere; all, just so that he could unjustly blame and try
11
to frame the poor nice Mathsons, who just want to mind their own business and end these
12
lawsuits, by any means necessary. Sure the Mathsons may have dumped a couple million pounds
13
of contaminated debris on Remingtons land, that they want to leave there forever, plus appropriate
14
and STEAL all that land, which debris was placed their on Remingtons land solely to support their
15 own major half acre expansion of their lawns and gardens on the mountaintop above, plus all of
16 Remingtons land directly below that 2 million pounds of hazardous contaminated debris, but so
17 what? In spite of all that, in Gans illogical and corrupt world, the polluting Mathsons are the
18 victims here clearly and not Remington!
19 More specifically, Gans numerous alleged predicate acts, at the summer 2016 SOL trial, for
20 example which included, without limitation: Obstruction of justice, multiple suborning of perjury,
witness tampering of witnesses from both sides, paying his fact witnesses excessive witness fees
21
which amounted to bribery,witness training, coaching and writing false declarations for them,
22
massive unlawful evidence spoliation, evidence suppression by corrupt disingenuous arguments
23
which were accepted by the court due to its improper influence, bribery [suspected possible
24
violation of 18 USC 201 (b) (1) (A), (B) & (C)] or simple trickery caused by misplaced trust and
25 confidence, and Gans multiple material misrepresentations, and multiple lies, mischaracterizations
26 and deceptions TO a state court judge, damaged Remington and the Burl Tree directly (as
27 below) because those actions cumulatively resulted in and solely CAUSED Gans and Mathsons
28 illicit total victory at the SOL trial. Defendants believe, have postulated and disingenuously
promulgated that now they must summarily win all of these cases. All of Remingtons cases must
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
683
be immediately dismissed, defendants now very knowingly falsely and deceitfully argue, which if
1
such dismissal does occur (from Judge Reinholtsen falling further under Gans and Brissos
2
wrongful spell), that additional collusive state or federal fraud would result in further actual cash
3
losses to Remington of at least $500,000-$1,200,000, according to proofs and current calculations
4
at the next trial.
5 It should be clarified here that all of the above predicate acts from the 2016 SOL trial and
6 many other individual acts of mail and wire fraud or attempted extortion may not be federal
7 predicate acts individually in themselves but must be looked at and read in combination with the
8 terms of the RICO enterprises objectives. Additionally, as repetitively explained, all state perjury
9 and unlawful acts will be necessarily repeated by Gans enterprise imminently in federal discovery,
10 which will promote them into being federal predicate acts.
For example, it is not a RICO predicate act for Gans or Brisso to willfully and believably
11
threaten Remington with a lawsuit for malicious prosecution, slander, abuse of process and punitive
12
damages, ETC, if Remington were to lose one of these lawsuits. Making those threats alone are
13
not an imprisonable offense, however taken in combination with all of the acts together they
14
are, especially when falsely sworn to during federal discovery. Reading and understanding the
15 allegations contained in the almost 700 pages herein, and analyzed in terms of the known RICO
16 enterprise objectives, it would appear to Remington that they are imprisonable offenses. This court
17 must determine that, however.
18 3. Remingtons civil rights were deprived under 42 USC 1983 in the several manners
19 described with particularity above, which were especially attributable to GansRICO purposes.
20 Remington alleges that he was deprived of either life, liberty and/or property without proper prior
notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Until Remington actually
21
loses one of these cases he may not have suffered serious property loss, plus he still has a
22
meaningful post-deprivation remedy of a tort action in state court. This area will be more completely
23
analyzed in the future, and more deprivations are believed to exist than what have been presently
24
discovered and therefore alleged above in this RICO statement.
25 For example, Remington has alleged at length for years that the RICO enterprise has unduly
26 influenced and clearly bribed various Humboldt County Superior Court clerks to sabotage
27 Remingtons documents to result in his cases being dismissed. There is absolutely no doubt about
28 that fact, however we do not definitely know who the criminal perpetrators are yet, after several
internal investigations by courthouse managers.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
684
Remington has postulated two possible names, above, based on his and the file room
1
managers previous at least three (3), since 2009, investigations of these crimes. Whether discovery
2
will implicate or vindicate those two names is unknown in February 2017, however at some point
3
Remington reserves the right to file suit based on those crimes and torts alone if relief is not attained
4
in this lawsuit, and if the County District Attorney and/or Brisso do not take an interest in this
5 prosecution, or allow it to meaningfully proceed. Remington has an important witness that claims
6 that there is no way the county is going to back Remington against Brisso in any aspect of these
7 cases, but that as yet remains to be clearly put on the sworn record. Additionally, Remington has
8 alleged that Gans has orchestrated continuously since 2008 and at least until 2017, a large variety of
9 approximately 40 different state and local government agencies to mount a major extortive,
10 harassing vendetta against Remington and the Burl Tree, which activities clearly violated the
established statutory or constitutional rights of Remington, and continue to do so in 2017. We will
11
attempt to associate and prosecute more of those violations in this case at the time of the FAC, if not
12
before, as they become further discovered, admitted to in various RICO action planned depositions,
13
better understood, and additionally researched, as time permits.
14
4. INSERT Y FROM (former) ABOUT PAGE 82 DISCUSSING GANS
15 UNETHICAL AND QUASI-ILLEGAL LITIGATORY BEHAVIOR SINCE ABOUT 2011,
16 when he gave-up all pretense of trying to win these cases by ordinary, ethical California civil
17 procedures, as he might be forced to employ against a fellow attorney with an independent judge
18 who was NOT a former law partner and confidant. Some of this is significant background related to
19 Gans integrity and hyper-aggressive litigation techniques, but much of this occurred during 2012
20 and since, when Gans is deposed in this federal case.
Miscellaneous Gans and Mitchell attorney transgressions, including without limitation:
21
multiple frauds, misrepresentations, numerous grossly mischaracterized issues, grave
22
inconsistencies in Gans legal positions, lies, fabrications, tricks and perjury, etc., in support of
23
Gans alleged RICO enterprises predicate acts, which are all consistent with Gans corrupt
24
conspiratorial intent and improper litigation practices dedicated to defeating Remington, primarily
25 with his unlawful actions.
26 1. Over many years, beginning in about 2009 and repeated as recently as 2014- 2016, both
27 Gans and Brisso have presented false and fraudulent requests for inflated numbers of hours at
28 fraudulently excessive lodestar attorney fees to Remington and several courts, and generally
double-billed and fabricated more than a majority of their costs, such as charging Remington for
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
685
filing fees in unrelated cases after being preliminarily granted the right to be reimbursed for
1
reasonable special motion costs. As a primary result of said frauds and state in Federal Court,
2
Remington now is being billed approximately $13,000 total by defendants, the majority of which
3
was obtained by fraud on the courts;
4
2. Russell Gans lied about meeting and conferring with Remington during June-August,
5 2011 prior to his protective order and summary judgment motions in federal court. Said meeting
6 and conferring is required under three different levels of federal law and regulations and when
7 Remington objected to that lack of notice or attempt to resolve the dispute without court
8 intervention, Gans simply lied about it in a declaration directed to Magistrate Vadas, District Court
9 Judge. That issue was raised by Remington in his Ninth Circuit appeal between 2012-2014 and
10 was never directly refuted by Gans, because he knows he cannot prove any meetings, because they
just did not occur. The Ninth Circuit was involved with the basic question of whether Magistrate
11
Vadas could summarily dismiss Remingtons entire case based on rule 37 (b), determined that it
12
could and therefore never reached any of Remingtons 100 other valid disputes, accusations and
13
injustices, many of which are contained in this listing;
14
3. Twin pipes frauds and perjuries. Gans corruptly, improperly and unethically failed to
15 correct his experts Ferriman and Gwinns perjury after they re-studied the infamous twin 6-inch
16 pipes on Mathsons land in 2012, during the federal briefing process. This issue was extensively
17 discussed during 2016 state pretrial hearings were Gans lied directly to Judge Reinholtsen, but said
18 judge was not worried about it and refused to order the simple few minutes of investigation which
19 would have resolved the issue and proved, once and for ALL, that Remington has been correct in
20 several hundred pages of sworn testimony on this critically important material subject and that
Gans, John Mathson and all of their experts have lied about it in every year these lawsuits have
21
been going on. Defendants know why this issue is important and it is somewhat beyond the scope
22
to write, or copy from numerous other documents, the 3-4 additional pages to explain it at this
23
point;
24
4. Gans expert Ferriman made a $10,000 remediation estimate and bid for removing their
25 encroaching, trespassing hazardous wastes from Remingtons land in about 2010, but then revoked
26 it for complex reasons, the most important of which was that it was a flagrant and obvious fraud
27 from the start and was merely a settlement ploy and also a blatant, outrageous and deceptive
28 fraudulent misrepresentation by a factor of about 20, at the time it was made;
20 mostly incompetent and in any case were not going to be admitted as evidence. However, Gans
illicitly subpoenaed said tests, without a court order as required by law, merely by scaring and
21
extorting Northcoast Labs, and just threatening and ordering them to improperly produce said tests
22
or else, without getting permission from Remington or a court. Said easy-going Northcoast labs,
23
not wanting another lawsuit with the Mitchell firm, immediately surrendered the test results
24
without complaint and presumably Gans had assured someone there that they were required to
25 send them if he requested them, despite them not being a party or witness in the lawsuit and they
26 were not required by law to surrender those not evidentiary tests. Remington has written more than
27 50 sworn pages on this issue, including several dozen important interpretive cases which indicate
28 that Gans was out of line and acted improperly, but since he is a licensed attorney still all courts
that read his documents made the default assumption that he was correct and that Remington was
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
687
wrong, when the actual cases cited by both parties proved that Gans had no right to obtain
1
potentially prejudicial mis-information which Remington did not intend to use at trial, because it
2
was useless and unreliable on many grounds;
3
7. As explained (again) in several hundred pages of Remingtons opposition to defendants
4
collateral estoppel summary judgment motions, MIL #20 and more than 2000 pages of related
5 motion documents, Gans blatantly and fraudulently plagiarized the orders of a federal judge in
6 an effort to deceive Judge Reinholtsen and Judge Miles at the 2014-15 Summary Judgment.
7 Ultimately it worked, because Judge Reinholtsen finally ruled in their favor, Remington believes
8 erroneously. The error issue, or not, will need to be determined by a state appellate court or
9 preferably much sooner by this court; however, the fundamental plagiarization of Federal
10 Magistrate Vadas clear orders, by deleting about 10 of said federal judges words at the end of a
critical sentence which defined a case ending ORDER, and then Gans rewriting them in his own
11
words, with a totally different meaning was clearly an obstruction of justice, and because it
12
occurred regarding a federal case issue, it was therefore instantly a RICO federal predicate act.
13
Again, many hundreds of sworn pages have already been written on this issue in the state
14
cases to date, and therefore Gan enterprise is just as familiar with this issue as Remington is. As
15 Gans legal leadership fully understands, Gans selectively and very carefully made a gravely
16 self-serving fraudulent deletion of about 15 of the federal judges words and then he did a total
17 entirely false rewriting in his own words of the most important and material statements in the
18 federal judges summary judgment order, and then put his own words in quotation marks along
19 with the judges, producing the intended effect that Gans self-serving remarks were actually
20 written by the federal judge as part of his order, rather than as part of Gans very serious
fraud. Had what Gans wrote actually been what the federal judge wrote, collateral estoppel might
21
have been guaranteed immediately, but as explained above it was eventually received about a year
22
later, largely based upon that plagiarism.
23
That intentional fraudulent plagiarism by Gans had the intent and quickly also the actual
24
unfortunate effect of fraudulently obtaining a favorable collateral estoppel effect in the state case,
25 where GANS entire motion was both frivolous and fraudulent from its inception, however it
26 prevailed anyway based on that fraud plus other gross misrepresentations and falsehoods
27 complained of above. No clearer example of Gans fraud against Remington and the courts could
28 be imagined than the above, and since that series of fraudulent acts by both Gans and Plotz over
20 made numerous false sworn statements which grossly minimized the large amount of hazardous
asbestos deposited on Remingtons property in an after 1998, which Remington knows personally
21
are blatantly false and written by Gans because Remington stood right by Ferriman for more than
22
an hour as a took repeated photographs of at least 23 different largest asbestos pipes, one Ferriman
23
signed the report that Gans wrote form lo and behold there was only maybe one asbestos pipe on
24
the sites not the 23 which photographs by Ferriman are even in the file and in Remingtons
25 possession. That type of flagrant lie and falsification is very exasperating to Remington, who hates
26 this deception and continuous criminal behavior regarding all issues, but at a trial obviously the
27 photos dont lie. In any event, aggravating as it is to have to do so, Remington can rather easily
28 prove that Gans and then his puppet Ferriman intentionally and fraudulently minimized the amount
of asbestos discovered here, and therefore its dire risks to plaintiff and public health.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
694
Gans clearly wrote the declarations for all of his environmental experts, nearly word for word
1
and such gross understatements are easily attributable to him, because they are so consistent with
2
his other prior and subsequent false motion documents. Remington knows and understands all of
3
this and would therefore swear to it, mostly because Remington physically walked with Ferriman
4
on July 6, 2011 for about an hour, wherein we both saw at least 15-20 of the 23 or more known
5 substantial asbestos pipe samples which were visible on that day, about half of which were still
6 partially submerged where they had been buried around 1998. There was no doubt that defendants
7 deposited said asbestos pipes in 1998, despite fraudulent aspersions and accusations that possibly
8 Remington put some of the asbestos there on the site himself. That accusation was impossible with
9 respect to the 4-10 foot long, by 500+ pound pipes largely submerged still with just there ends
10 sticking out of the ground. Among other idiotic and impossible assumptions and accusations by
Gans concerning this issue, it would have been impossible for Remington to transport 500 pound
11
pipes across the ravine and down the mountain without any cranes or other heavy equipment and
12
then bury them up to 8 feet deep in a mound of gravel and concrete debris which even a backhoe
13
could not fully penetrate.
14
In summary, Remington knows that he showed Ferriman most if not all of the major 23
15 asbestos pipes that were exposed on that day, which is proven by the fact that Ferriman took
16 numerous photographs of some of those pipes which he saw.
17 However, the declaration which Ferriman purportedly wrote a couple of months later swore
18 that he only saw possibly one asbestos pipe fragment, which might not even be asbestos. Had he
19 been in doubt that day he could have taken a sample and had it tested at any lab of his choice, or he
20 could have taken a sample of the 60% chrysotile asbestos, which was also prevalent on the site.
However, he had no doubt and it was only Gans several months later that wrote declarations
21
introducing unreasonable doubts.
22
As above, Remington was right beside Ferriman on July 6, 2011 for most of an hour looking
23
at asbestos pipes, and related objects in the area, and Ferriman studied the asbestos pipes especially,
24
with great interest, photographed them all, but had no questions and no doubts about what he was
25 seeing, other than that he was clearly troubled, which we will pursue in his trial cross-
26 examination.
27 Without writing five more pages on this topic here, simply put those false declarations with
28 respect to the amount of asbestos present, its toxicity or whether it was even asbestos at all was
20 enormous 10-yard dump loads which was equal in weight and toxicity to some of the worst,
heaviest and most poisonous hazardous wastes, ever produced in this county. They have been
21
named and fully listed elsewhere, but consisted of a large amount of gigantic, onerous 10-20 ton
22
reinforced concrete blocks, which now require a crane or large excavator to remove, large amounts
23
of septic wastes, lead, asbestos, organic chemicals, carcinogenic dusts, heavily saturated and toxic
24
hydrocarbon wastes from gas station remediation projects and similar highly infectious toxins,
25
many of which are essentially invisible, airborne or poisons dissolved in above and below ground
26 waters emanating from the dump area.
27 As far as this point goes, it is the volume, enormous weight, size of the huge chunks and
28 overall the amount of the encroachment that is being understated in Gans sentence; as he
minimizes the toxicity in other statements, and characterizes it elsewhere as essentially benign,
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
704
clean, unpolluted soils and just plain good dirt right out of a redwood forest, as opposed to the
1
truth which is listed in the paragraph above.
2
The true facts regarding the volume and toxicity of the encroachment have been sworn to
3
over many years by our environmental experts, however as Remingtons present expert Dr.
4
McEdwards characterizes it: We wont really know for sure exactly how much is there and what it
5 is until it is removed and looked at and bagged item by item, so therefore since defendants have
6 admittedly dumped the debris and are obviously responsible for removing what they dumped, it is
7 logical then to request that they just pay for the removal themselves and if it turns out to be just a
8 small pile of dirt such as a few wheelbarrow loads, than whats the problem? Why not just do it
9 and end these cases? If they thought it was just a few dump truck loads requiring $5000-
10 $10,000 to remove, do you think that they would spend $400,000 or more battling Remington
over it? The facts and ramifications thereof, in these paragraphs here, really prove Remingtons
11
entire RICO case and that the enterprise is deliberately and massively understating the problem
12
which they caused, otherwise they would just resolve it in a few days. The RICO defendants, if
13
anything are NOT STUPID. By definition, it would be stupid to spend $400,000 to attempt to
14
make a $10,000 problem go away, especially when its not going away. Therefore, it can be
15 logically concluded that defendants did not think they can solve the problem with $10,000 and
16 perhaps not for even $400,000.
17 Reiterating, since they refused to do it and have spent at least $300-400,000 so far battling
18 Remington on this, it may be inferred that they fear and actually believe that cleanup of their
19 mess is really going to be very expensive, and therefore they are fighting Remington to the death
20 on this volume and amount of truckloads issue, to avoid doing it. In other words, it should be clear
logically that Gans is being totally disingenuous in his understatements of the volume and toxicity
21
of the encroaching materials, because if not, they would just remove it all without complaint, and
22
we could all just go home.
23
26. As discussed in more detail elsewhere, in February 2016, Gans improperly ordered
24
his puppet-soldier John Mathson to frantically rake-up about 1 yd. of redwood needles and then
25
trespass onto Remingtons land, and there walk-them-around in 5-gallon buckets to distribute them
26 carefully out by hand, down onto the dump sites, to fully conceal each and every remaining
27 asbestos pipe at the ground surface, which Mathson had not yet already removed, presumably
28 because some of them were too heavy, buried much too deep to remove or too toxic. We now have
extensive surveillance video of all of these fraudulent concealment activities, including the exact
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
705
hours of the day, duration of the job and the day of the month, ALL coordinated to exactly
1
precede by only hours or minutes, Dr. McEdwards brief, expensive trip-up to Humboldt County
2
from Laytonville for his deposition. Gans well-knew that this would likely be Dr. McEdwards
3
only view of the contaminated dumpsites, and therefore if the enterprise could remove and conceal
4
all of the asbestos as though it had never even been there, then Dr. McEdwards would have to
5 acknowledge that he was not certain what was there then or had ever been there.
6 In any case, Remington now understands all details of the cover-up, Gans motives and his
7 completed objectives with regards to those series of incidents, which we will again probe in
8 appropriate discovery. It is very likely that here again we will gather some additional federal lies
9 from the obvious implicated RICO defendants during discovery, since we have absolute
10 photographic proofs in this area, which we will employ at trial after we have established additional
perjury.
11
27. Gans false premise logic strikes again! Gans has falsely alleged that Remingtons and
12
SHN tests are not valid because they were done on Remingtons property, and that the only valid
13
tests of these dumpsites are conducted on Mathsons property. Apparently that is based on the false
14
logic that if what is dumped on Remingtons property originally came from Mathsons, then what is
15 on Mathsons property today must be identical to what they sorted and selectively dumped onto
16 Remingtons land. That logic is flawed, leads to an inaccurate conclusion and the reasons therefore
17 are thoroughly discussed above. Irrespective of the false logic however, why would it not be still
18 important to do contamination tests on Remingtons land where the actual complaint arises from?
19 Mathson can also test on his land, but so what? What difference does it make what is on Mathsons
20 land, as Remingtons multiple complaints or about what is presently on Remingtons land NOT
what is on Mathsons, and the former is very different than what Mathson kept on his property and
21
planted luxurious gardens on top of.
22
Gans clever sophistic false logic deceived the federal magistrate in CV 094547 NJV, but is
23
spurious, inaccurate, unscientific and ignores the crucial fact that defendants sorted the debris
24
before pushing it down the mountain onto Remingtons land; therefore, Gans attempt to equate the
25
debris on both properties is actually the opposite of what is true for the most part in these cases,
26 although obviously there is some overlap including huge concentrations of gas station remediation
27 hydrocarbons on Mathsons property also.
28 However, never forget that this lawsuit is about contamination on Remingtons land and not
about conditions on another piece of property 100 feet away, especially where all testing there was
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
706
incompetently conducted out-of-holding time, as discussed above. Again, Gans understands that his
1
approach is illogical, deceitful and fraudulent, so if he repeats that flagrant and obvious sophistry,
2
as though it were truthful in his federal discovery, then he will again have a big problem by the
3
time of trial.
4
28. Remingtons lawfully election under Mangini II. Gans persists in disingenuously and
5 corruptly arguing against Remingtons lawful election that the encroachment is a remediable
6 nuisance and trespass and not a permanent nuisance. Gans knows better than Remington that a
7 proper election was made back in early 2011, and nothing has changed since then, except for
8 perhaps the fact that Judge Reinholtsen has become unduly and improperly influenced by and
9 accepts anything inaccurate that Gans says as an absolute fact, and to date has totally missed or not
10 understood at all the election issue and what its significance is here.
Gans repeated and persistent fraudulent written insistence that defendants encroachment is a
11
permanent nuisance/trespass because Remington declared it alternatively as possibly being such,
12
BEFORE his final Mangini II election was made is a serious intentional and Remington believes a
13
criminal deception. That is because because as Gans knows at least as well as anyone here that all
14
(100%) of the environmental experts that have visited the sites and studied these cases have all
15 unanimously agreed that the encroachment is easily removable, which means it is remediable
16 and therefore by definition it cannot be a permanent nuisance/ trespass. In other words, it
17 qualifies under the authoritative California Supreme Court contamination law, under the Mangini II
18 cases and their offspring, as a continuing nuisance/ trespass, which causes continuous and
19 continuing damages, until it is removed.
20 29. Gans perpetually lies that Remington never did any tests on his property, when the
evidence shows that many tests were done. Ever since about 2008, Gans perpetually falsely claims
21
that Remington has not obtained any competent soil or water tests prior to 2011, which he knows is
22
provably false with respect to the Stevens Ecology tests, the University of Massachusetts tests, the
23
Western Analytical Laboratory tests, the numerous SHN early anecdotal tests of the entire area
24
including Remington Creek, among others described at length in Remingtons declarations. Like
25
all of the other issues complained about herein in this section, every time Gans falsely asserts these
26 claims he is committing frauds on Remington and at least three courts in the pursuit of their RICO
27 enterprises objectives, which simply put is to win these cases unconditionally, win DIRTY, and to
28 destroy Remington during the lengthy process.
30. Gans stupid and discredited false claim that diesel and gasoline are really asphalt!
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
707
Gans experts claim, in a disingenuous script written for them by Gans for their signature,
1
that the only hydrocarbon on Remingtons land is asphalt and that it mimics diesel and motor oil
2
molecules in the gas chromatography tests and hydrocarbon molecular weight laboratory studies.
3
In other words, our lying tests are coming from accredited labs which are too stupid to
4
understand that what looks like diesel, gasoline, benzene, xylene, etc, under a microscope, when
5 burned as a vapor, and in an every other modern sophisticated scientific testing method proves, and
6 as based upon molecular weight is really not what it appears to be and actually IS, at all, but it
7 is all just benign asphalt because Gans thinks that fits his false play script.
8 Our experts, especially the eminent John Aveggio, have all proven that Gans stupid, self-
9 serving and blatantly false narrative, obvious misrepresentation and bogus scientific interpretation,
10 is merely a successful attempt to deceive the courts and a jury, who seem to be inclined to believe
almost anything that Gans spouts out of his mouth. We will state all that succinctly in sworn
11
discovery to see if the RICO defendants, specially their experts want to commit federal perjury,
12
conspiratorial collusion and other frauds over these obviously false and frivolous scientific claims
13
in artfully drafted by Gans many many years ago, and which are patently increasingly false on their
14
face, with every additional analysis.
15 31. During the 2016 SOL trial several RICO defendants acknowledge that they
16 contaminated Remingtons land, just not as badly as Remington has alleged, or something like
17 that, i.e less hazardous wastes and not as hazardous as alleged. That was progress, and in essence
18 defendants fully admitted liability, which makes sense, because obviously they were the only ones
19 that could possibly have dumped 2 million pounds of hazardous waste in that remote area which
20 was inaccessible to Remington. What doesnt make sense is why they are still battling Remington
over this and not already removing their debris that they acknowledge they dumped, buried and
21
then further clandestinely concealed on Remingtons land.
22
Gans, the contamination defendants and the RICO defendants have never fully acknowledged
23
in writing that they deposited on Remingtons land ALL that our lying eyes and tests have
24
proven, which is that they contaminated Remingtons land with friable asbestos, benzene,
25
underground service station fixtures, including a Lube Bay underground hydraulic cylinder
26 discovered by Gans himself, one UST rolled all the way down the mountain into Remington
27 Creek, underground rusty gas station piping, high concentrations of all types of degraded
28 hydrocarbons from about 30-80 years ago, E. coli, coliform, lead, toxic levels of several other
heavy metals, etc.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
708
Ironically, they now in 2016 for the first time have admitted that they dumped a huge amount
1
of debris onto Remingtons land but now defendants are nitpicking on what that was and whether
2
Remington wheelbarrowed over across the deep impassable ravine other objects weighing many
3
thousands of pounds, which Gans presently has not admitting to dumping there! Well, where else
4
today come from then? When that issue came up at one point during 2016 pretrial hearings again
5 made the inference that maybe the stuff had been there for a couple hundred years and was left by
6 the Indians, however on many different levels none of that makes sense since defendants
7 acknowledge they imported a massive amount of truckloads of junk in 1998, and possibly they
8 didnt identify, categorize an index every single hazardous item which was dumped along with
9 70,000 pounds of other debris and just one semi-end dump load.
10 Shortly we will see if Gans will deny those facts in a sworn Request for Admission or not,
with a court that is impatient over frivolous objections, which will absolutely undoubtably result in
11
Gans not making any substantive responses to any properly worded discovery question, so then will
12
quickly schedule a deposition.
13
Even more interesting though will be all of the lesser defendants and the other as yet
14
unnamed likely defendants and experts and whether they want to start making false and deceptive
15 answers to federal discovery and depositions, with all the risks that entails.
16 32. Enormous real estate value drops. It is an absolutely proven fact since 2011, that both
17 the Mathsons and the Remington properties real estate values have been drastically reduced in
18 value and are both entirely unmarketable today as they are presently contaminated. Gans will be
19 soon asked that question and presumably he will be sanctioned, if he refuses to answer such simple
20 questions if properly worded and defined. However, Remingtons been down this road with Gans
many too many times, and knows that his specialty is quibbling over all discovery terminology and
21
making no answer to 99% of the questions. Therefore most written discovery will be aimed at other
22
witnesses who may decide to become whistleblowers in order to save themselves, and get some
23
kind of immunity as early as possible, while it is still possible to get.
24
Remington had always believed in written discovery as being a valuable and efficient
25
information gathering tool, until he encountered Mr. Gans. Since then, its become quite obvious
26 that battling Gans verbally at depositions is probably a more efficient way to invest or perhaps
27 waste his time and money, than reading a hundred pages of the same injection repeated five times
28 per page.
10 Circuit. Again, not arising to the criminality of a federal predicate act, but showing background and
long-time illicit intent, and essentially proving Gans corruption and disingenuous advocacy practices
11
going back at least as early as 2012, Remingtons Rule 60 (b)(1) (3) (6) 2012 motion in CV 094547
12
NJV properly and legally qualified as a Rule 4 (a) (1) (A) motion which tolled the time Remington
13
had to file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, however Gans disingenuously, strenuously and dishonestly
14
argued the opposite, however in that instance the District Court, Magistrate Vadas saw that
15 dishonesty and ruled against him. Remington also won at least six other important procedural
16 motions in the Ninth Circuit regarding the filing of the briefs, however eventually lost the war
17 because apparently district judges have unlimited power under Rule 37, whether factually and truth-
18 based or not.
19 41.Remington has never been solely responsible for any events in these cases. Gans
20 repeatedly falsely and disingenuously lied that Remington was solely responsible for continuously
delaying the state and federal proceedings, which Gans falsely alleged in his Ninth Circuit
21
opposition dated 10-23-12. Gans will now be asked under penalty of perjury to reassert those false
22
charges including his proofs, evidence or lack thereof. There are at least 200 instances where
23
Remington will employ that practice to prove that Gans is essentially a gigantic liar, and when hes
24
not lying he is misrepresenting, mischaracterizing or otherwise deceiving the court about much of
25 what he writes, but not all obviously. However, again the basic principle is as follows: If someone
26 talks to you for 10 minutes and tells you nine things of interest, but then smashes in the mouth
27 knocks you out at the end of it, what do you remember about that and was a crime committed?
28 42. Gans RICO enterprise and its precedents argued that Remingtons state claims
were clearly dominant for about four years in federal court and then improperly and
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
712
unlawfully reversed that well-estopped position hundred and 180 during state proceedings in
1
2014-16. Gans and Brisso for several years, especially in 2009 dismissal motion documents,
2
vociferously argued the truth here that Remingtons state claims are clearly dominant in most
3
respects and were also very different from the federal statutory environmental claims. But, by 2012-
4
2014, defendants attorneys had exactly reversed that position, and argued the opposite. That is
5 improper and impermissible for an attorney to take the exact opposite side of the position several
6 years apart with no intervening factual changes whatsoever. Under penalty of perjury, Remington
7 wonders about that, and will ask all said RICO attorneys during their depositions which is their true
8 position and belief? Is black white, or is white black?
9 In other words, Gans and Brisso disingenuously argued back in 2009 that the state law
10 claims predominated, but by 2014 to 16 Gans has argued that the exact reverse is true: now the
federal claims predominate sufficiently to overshadow and erase, via the frivolous application of
11
collateral estoppel, all of Remingtons hundreds of independent state common law, tort, personal
12
injury, general and compensatory damages and costs as listed.
13
43. Similarly, defendants initially argued for at least four years that Remington state
14
claims were very different from his federal claims, but then exactly diametrically reversed that
15 position beginning in 2014 and continuing through the present, where they now argue that all claims
16 and issues are and always were identical. Moreover, Gans and Brisso similarly successfully argued
17 and prevailed in 2009 on their position that Remingtons state claims are very different from the
18 federal claims and issues and therefore predominate here. However, by the time of their 2014-2016
19 collateral estoppel motions, said attorneys, and the entire RICO enterprise disingenuously,
20 opportunistically and unethically exactly reversed that position, which we will prove during
discovery and trial.
21
That is, in 2009, Mathson Gans and Brisso explained authoritatively and at length that
22
Remingtons primary state claims are totally different from and independent of the federal claims,
23
and the only new legal claim brought by Remington was under EPCRA, Gans SJ motion in
24
2014-15.
25
Today, both Gans and Plotz vehemently assert that all of the issues from the state and federal
26 cases were and always have been identical and on June 2, 2016 they apparently convinced Judge
27 Reinholtsen of that error, finally gaining an erroneous collateral estoppel from MIL # 20. The RICO
28 enterprise has no morality or conception of truthfulness, and it is second nature for Gans to argue
one day that defendants contaminated both properties, and on the next day argue that defendants
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
713
were innocent and Remington was the one that contaminated both properties despite the scientific
1
impossibility of that. Truth, logic and science have no real truthful meaning to Gans who persistently
2
ignores all three, and then can trick both state judges and impatient jurors easily into believing
3
almost anything he says, while using his own false and nonscientific morality and fact system.
4
44. The Federal Magistrate clearly split plaintiffs environmental causes of action into at
5 least two and arguably three parts by himself, but the RICO attorneys and Judge Reinholtsen
6 decided to ignore thatLawful splitting and ruled that everything was one. Judge Vadas claim
7 splitting set a precedent, which now must be adhered to because it is the federal district court
8 which now controls the law to be applied in state court to Gans frivolous res judicata attempt.
9 Judge Vadas clearly preserved all of Remingtons state claims for adjudication in state court
10 and it is logically obvious that he also preserved all necessary underlying evidence to prosecute
those claims in state court wherein he never admitted any of Remingtons evidence and never
11
considered any issues beyond the federal statutory claims on the merits. Even when he ruled-on and
12
dismissed Remingtons federal claims he did not look at specific evidence or merits but just
13
concluded the obvious that, without any evidence or experts Remington could not prove anything in
14
federal court. Judge Reinholtsens complicated and failed attempt to understand what the magistrate
15 did or to grasp the relationship between federal summary judgment orders and Remington state case
16 DR 080678 is probably the primary reason that Remington has brought this action.
17 Judge Reinholtsen erroneously attributed great wisdom and carefulness to the magistrates
18 lengthy but totally one-sided summary judgment order, and then Remington believes he wrongfully
19 attributed great wisdom and merit to obvious rambling federal obiter dicta, intended to sustain the
20 magistrates federal statutory decisions, based solely on Remingtons Rule 26 disclosure failures
which wound-up leaving Remington in the untenable situation of not being able to present one single
21
piece of any evidence of any kind, but nothing else.
22
Obviously such a one-sided federal decision disallowing five federal statutory claims could
23
not be fully dispositive of all of the numerous unrelated state claims and damages, which Remington
24
had more than ample evidence for, and he had also fully proven all of the state claims for about two
25
years before the magistrates independent decision in an essentially unrelated case, correctly stating
26 that with out any evidence Remington could not assert any federal claims. However, the magistrate
27 very carefully and on three different occasions ordered that Remingtons state claims would stay
28 viable for a decision in state court, but judge Reinholtsen dismissed that order as irrelevant, which
again was probably further error in Remingtons opinion.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
714
47. In 2009, Gans and Brisso urged the federal court to reject all of Remingtons federal
1
claims and properly leave all state claims for adjudication in Humboldt County Superior
2
Court. That was logical then because as they acknowledged state discovery was far-advanced,
3
no discovery whatsoever occurred in federal court nor did Remington ever attempt to do anything
4
substantive there, until it was too late. Remington had all of his experts fully in place in state court
5 and erroneously assumed that that would apply in federal court, and that Gans would agree that he
6 had not been prejudiced by any Rule 26 non-disclosures, because the fact was that Gans was not
7 prejudiced in any respect. However, Gans again disingenuously argued great prejudice and the
8 Magistrate bought that false argument. Here, Gans will now have to explain and prove what great
9 prejudice Remington subjected him to that warranted the obviously unjust result full dismissal by
10 summary judgment.
48. Gans improperly deposed Remingtons environmental expert Aveggio on federal
11
issues during his last state deposition, and then corruptly use that testimony against
12
Remington at federal summary judgment despite the fact that Aveggio and all of his work was
13
kicked out of the case, had been denied use by Remington, but suddenly it was just fine for Gans
14
to use him, when he was not even a witness in the federal case.
15 One of the very major reasons for federal summary judgment in 2011-2014 was that Gans
16 improperly and deceptively deposed Aveggio on the most crucial federal issue in that lawsuit in his
17 state deposition which had been approved by the state judge, at a time long after federal discovery
18 had concluded. Gans improperly asked Aveggio about imminent threats under RCRA at the July 1,
19 2011 state deposition where that subject was initially improper and irrelevant but became more
20 important after Aveggio was fully barred from the federal case, about a month before Gans federal
Summary judgment in August- September 2011. Remington desperately needed him to oppose
21
Gans frivolous summary judgment, however the magistrate barred him based largely on Gans
22
simultaneously false statements in his protective order motion. Gans still used him in his offensive
23
summary judgment case, as explained above, and also very significantly quoted Aveggios then
24
totally honest but totally improper to use here (and fully BARRED) state deposition, and then very
25 unethically used that improper barred state deposition testimony, with seriously deleterious effect
26 against Remington, and that testimony proved to be an important factor in Gans gaining his unjust
27 federal summary judgment against Remington. Then, on top of that Gans and Plotz improperly
28 applied all of that to get collateral estoppel in the state case, which is essentially unethical behavior
on top of improper and corrupt behavior to get a truly unjust result.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
715
Probably there is a RICO predicate act here or close to it when we get Gans to honestly
1
comment about his whole train of corrupt activity above, what he did, why he did it and whether it
2
was legitimately in good faith or not. Again, as above since Gans cannot answer or defend any of
3
his actions truthfully without getting himself into deeper trouble, Remington will structure questions
4
on these different issues in order to trap him into provable perjury on one or more of these hundreds
5 of major problem areas for Gans.
6 49. Gans violated Rule 26 in multiple ways himself, but fully got away with it in federal
7 court. Violating Rule 26 was what got Remingtons case thrown out by the magistrate, and Gans
8 did the same thing with the same punishment under the statutes, when he deposed Aveggio before he
9 got his report. Under Rule 26, if a deposition is taken prior to receipt of said expert report then
10 said report is thereafter waived if the deposition is scheduled first as occurred here.
Remington raised that technical issue with the magistrate, but by that time it was too late as
11
Gans had already totally biased the magistrate against Remington, such that all the former could
12
think of by August 2011 was how to get Remington out of federal court as painlessly and quickly as
13
possible. In other words, the magistrate totally stopped listening to Remington during August 2011
14
and despite three different major reconsideration motions, the magistrate never wavered from any of
15 his errors or ever acknowledged the many mistakes that he admitted that he had made in his order,
16 such as being unable to find Remingtons personal sworn evidence because he could not understand
17 a basic indexing system. The magistrate kept looking for Remingtons responses to specific Separate
18 Statement issues at section numbers, mistaking them for page numbers. Generally speaking, said
19 magistrate was not really intellectually up to the job and certainly did not relate to Remington or
20 understand his writings even as to such basic elements as determining the obvious and clearly
indexed and FULLY EXPLAINED differences between section numbers that went up to about 100
21
with the page numbers that went up to about 250.
22
Additionally, Gans heavily used and relied upon his asbestos expert Mischa Schwartz,
23
although asbestos was never even officially involved in the case through Remingtons complaints,
24
and was not even discovered or understood at all until long after both initial complaints had been
25
drafted. Further, Schwartz was never designated at all under Rule 26 nor was he even mentioned
26 before the close of discovery and never even visited the sites erode any reports until months after
27 discovery had fully closed. In Remingtons case that was a fatal error which led to automatic
28 summary judgment dismissal, but again, when Gans was involved, the magistrate didnt care and
allowed the undisclosed asbestos expert to opine for many pages about asbestos, which as above was
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
716
never even an issue in the case, nor was it proper for Schwartz to enter any opinions at all. Here
1
however, not only did Schwartz dominate Judge Vadas summary judgment order, for many pages
2
about an issue not even in Remingtons complaint, but said judge was strongly influenced by him,
3
however Schwartz was an undisclosed expert and did not belong there any more than Remingtons
4
expert Aveggio did at that point, because of Rule 26 disclosure failures.
5 50. Gans lied about being prejudiced by Remingtons not providing proper Rule 26
6 expert reports in 2011. In fact, Gans had not only all of the expert information that he needed with
7 respect to all of Remingtons trial experts but he had more information than Remington himself did
8 about Remingtons own experts as came out at the several July 2011 depositions. In that regard,
9 Gans stated in his federal protective order motion in August 2011 that Remingtons opposition
10 confirms he intentionally did provide expert witness reports. That was another way of saying, via
Freudian slip that Gans had all of the expert reports from Remington that he could possibly use for
11
a trial in July 2011 and he needed nothing more.
12
51. Additional Gans deceit and deception in federal court. Gans first misrepresented his
13
supposedly great prejudice to the federal court, and then on September 13, 2011 he further
14
complained that he could not read depositions and pleadings in the state action to learn what
15 Remingtons experts would say there, because obviously, there are significant distinctions
16 between plaintiffs federal claims and his state court trespass and nuisance claims.
17 As possibly the careful reader, if any, will note, that statement is totally inconsistent with all
18 of Gans other misrepresentations discussed several pages above. Gans deceitful misrepresentations
19 actually know no bounds. In fact, by 2014-15 and 16, all that was forgotten and entirely reversed.
20 Now (today) all issues in both cases have suddenly become exactly identical, so
identical that collateral estoppel was justified and granted. Federal discovery will attempt to discern
21
what exactly Gans really believes is the truth in that regard, because both contradictory statements
22
and positions cannot be true anymore than the five or six above contradictory statements can ALL be
23
true. Trying to get to the bottom of Gans deceitful criminal mind will be a difficult challenge, but
24
one Remington is ready for and motivated to conquer. Obviously Gans has no right, wrong, actual
25
facts even permanent false or fake facts which he can consistently use for years. He therefore
26 jumps back and forth and all around on most of the case issues and how he swears to all of that
27 and tries to make it consistent or truthful in a federal sworn deposition will be truly remarkable to
28 witness! However, tricky and slippery as he is, we will catch-up with him eventually with enough
preparation.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
717
52. The magistrate made numerous egregious errors, some of which were admitted but
1
none of which were reconsidered over a six-month reconsideration effort.
2
Another huge reason for the federal summary judgment were the numerous errors and
3
mistakes which were admitted to in writing by the magistrate, wherein he literally, strange and
4
improbable as that sounds, could not find most of Remingtons evidence in his to lengthy Separate
5 Statement Opposition Declarations, which were Remingtons responses to Gans Separate Statement
6 remarks and outline which the magistrate erroneously concluded Remington had ignored, because he
7 had no answer to anything Gans stated as facts.
8 Nothing could be further from the truth, as Remington had every Gans supposedly
9 undisputed fact fully refuted many times over, however the magistrate just could not find
10 Remingtons answers. Said answers were right there in plain sight and it was absolutely not
Remingtons fault that the magistrate was not motivated to locate them.
11
That sad fact and ignorant set of circumstances was fully admitted to by the magistrate in his
12
orders, but yet he refused go back and reconsider anything or to admit any error himself. Although
13
the whole situation was very blatantly obvious, the magistrate was very bullheaded and decided that
14
it was too late for him to go back and see that it was his error not Remingtons, just to remedy a little
15 injustice and to properly adjudicate this case.
16 All the fully sworn responsive information from Remington was there and properly indexed,
17 and even double indexed, but the magistrate just could not find it. That was the magistrates fault not
18 Remingtons. Yes, Remingtons responsive summary judgment opposition was about 250+ pages,
19 but so what? Said Magistrate was never that busy and had plenty of time to spend a couple of
20 minutes understanding Remingtons index and if he couldnt do it any of his clerks could have done
so in seconds. Remington did his job perfectly well and very diligently, however the magistrate was
21
either incompetent or not motivated enough to understand Remingtons documents or to decipher
22
Remington standard legal indexing format, which was perfectly obvious and simple to follow, just as
23
these present documents are paginated and indexed, had someone wanted to do so.
24
Remington had all perfectly proper detailed page and section number indexes, and in fact
25
Remington had three different lengthy and detailed indexes for only one less than 300-page
26 declaration.
27 However the magistrate found almost nothing Remington wrote because he was looking for
28 page numbers were Remington had cited section numbers, but obviously the two were different and
there were only a quarter to a third as many section numbers as there were page numbers.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
718
None of that should have been unclear and obviously the magistrate was not looking very
1
hard for Remingtons answers, which was partly because he gave Remington no credit for honesty or
2
expertise, although Remington had not been examined for either. Apparently the magistrates Santa
3
Cruz University education did not prepare him in any of the scientific disciplines that are needed in
4
this case, or properly prepare him in the advanced disciplines of the most fundamental writing
5 indexing basics.
6 Gans, of course, fully understood the injustice involved here and he and only he
7 understood that Remington had properly responded to every one of his separate statements of
8 undisputed facts, and that the magistrate stupidly missed all of Remingtons answers, and then even
9 after said magistrate acknowledged that he was having trouble finding Remingtons answers and did
10 not understand why that was, he still would not reconsider anything.
To Remington, admitting an error and then refusing to reconsider it was unacceptable for any
11
judge and certainly was so in this case. Remington still gets furious at recalling this injustice!
12
Remington attempted three different reconsiderations to solve that material error, however
13
they were all rejected, without any reasons cited. Gans could have done the honest thing and
14
explained what had occurred, but doing the right thing never occurred to Gans. Gans can still
15 do the truthful thing now that an honest California advocate would be expected to do and certainly
16 in his deposition Remington will structure some questions in this area to prove that Gans is corrupt
17 and has no intention of ever doing the right thing with respect to Remington, now or ever and until
18 after his RICO enterprise has won a total victory. During that period around April 2012, Remington
19 even had one severe case of pneumonia which debilitated him for at least a month, and hampered is
20 reconsideration efforts and attempts to explain that the magistrate had made the administrative errors
and not Remington. Gans could have clarified things and explained that he understood Remingtons
21
documents perfectly, and there were a bunch of other things he could have said, but he never said
22
anything on that issue, but a few weeks later when Remington filed his notice of appeal Gans took
23
on a whole new deceitful strategy of claiming that Remingtons appeal was not timely due to a
24
bunch of technical BS which Remington immediately saw through as did the magistrate, so Gans
25
fraudulent efforts to kill Remingtons federal case before he even got a notice of appeal off to the
26 Ninth Circuit appellate court failed miserably.
27 Therefore, instead of Gans doing the right thing in the numerous pre-appeal and brief stages
28 in the Ninth Circuit, back in 2012-13, Gans did nothing and maintained his dishonest and deceitful
posture through the final unjust dismissal of Remingtons entire lawsuit. Now he will get a chance to
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
719
explain what he was thinking while he did that. Gans has won some victories here and there but he
1
always fights dirty and never has any ethics about anything that he has ever done in these cases.
2
53. Gans has a duty to the law to be truthful occasionally. Under the law and shackles of
3
California attorney ethics, as cited at #14 above, see Vega and Cicone, Supra, since Gans chose to
4
speak at all, he thereafter has or HAD the duty as an attorney to speak the truth, but clearly he
5 cant, wont and almost never does because his entire defense depends entirely upon frauds against
6 Remington, the courts and any jury that gets involved.
7 That is not likely to work or fly very well when Remington is interrogating him under oath
8 on all of these issues one by one until we get some answers, motives and actual admissions of
9 wrongdoing.
10 Probably this court has learned that looking in to the eyes of a litigant at oral argument
can potentially tell whether the speaker is lying or not, or at leastIf he appears to be earnestly telling
11
the truth as he understands it without obvious deception, excessive anxieties or equivocation.
12
Although looking into ones eyes to see their soul was discredited in the Bush-Putin days,
13
nevertheless, theres something to that concept. Carefully watching the eyes of television pundits for
14
example usually demonstrates that they at least think theyre telling the truth, or perhaps not. THE
15 POINT?
16 Remington is alleging herein that since Gans seldom tells the truth for very long about
17 anything, and if the court stares intently in his eyes and closely watches his demeanor when any
18 of these allegations herein are discussed, Remington alleges that significant material
19 information and inferences of deception will be obtained. Not conclusive perhaps, because
20 Gans is a skilled psychopathic liar on many of these topics, but on the other hand, if the court
catches him off-guard with unexpected questions, Gans could crumble.
21
Gans is just a small-time country lawyer who now has to be experiencing considerable
22
anxiety, because he above all else knows that his career now rests on a flimsy house of cards, and
23
now extends from a very inexperienced human pyramid now 3-4 levels high.
24
That pyramid is founded on deceit, deception, misrepresentations and perjury
25
purveyed through about 20 independent witnesses, and as such, it will inevitably fall
26 eventually, as though it were built in the middle of a swamp.
27 Since about half of those witnesses are essentially unmotivated, unsophisticated and unskilled
28 NON-psychopathic liars, Gans has a lot to worry about, even from, and probably especially from
members of his own firm who are not fully on-board with being involved in a RICO enterprise, or
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
720
fully knowledgeable about the depth, breadth and severity of Gans corruption, especially as
1
exponentially escalated in 2016.
2
54. Remington did not prosecute the federal case CV 094547 NJV very diligently for a
3
variety of frequently expressed reasons.
4
As Remington has frequently explained and Gans knows all too well, Remington did not
5 prosecute the federal case diligently, if at all, nor was there any reason to do so at the time because
6 the STATE system was fully on track in August 2011 to resolve all of these Mathsons versus
7 Remington litigations, and was functioning normally at that time. That was especially true, after
8 Gans disarmed Remington in August, 2011 with an apparently fraudulent but substantial settlement
9 attempt, which when Remington began focusing on the details of that, it was quickly revoked
10 entirely. Meanwhile, for about two weeks Gans had tricked Remington into believing the cases were
eminently close to settling and so he did not worry especially about the federal case. After the
11
apparent imminent state case settlement, Remington was left to confront an apparently unimportant
12
federal case, which then appeared to be moot, so Remington did not take it as seriously as he should
13
have. However, it as a simple matter of summary judgment law, mentioned in numerous cases, that if
14
a plaintiff does not prosecute the case fully for whatever reason then that should be taken into
15 consideration as to whether such a summary judgment decision was truly on the merits, especially
16 as far as collateral estoppel is concerned in a parallel case where Remington had focused his
17 entire attention during summer 2011.
18 It is obviously ironic and gravely unjust when a litigant focuses on the one parallel
19 (state) case which has very nearly been settled only to have that settlement offer revoked (here by
20 the tricky and corrupt Gans), and then having said case that was 99% settled dismissed via collateral
estoppel based on the first (federal) case that was not prosecuted fully because it appeared to be
21
moot, unimportant and in which no discovery had ever been done by either side. This is a very
22
important point, for this court to consider and if it is not artfully articulated above, there will
23
probably be many other opportunities to do so.
24
However, all of that deception, confusion and smoke, was apparently, in retrospect, part of
25
Gans super-clever, tricky and corrupt master plan, wherein he quickly used that frivolous near-
26 settlement of the state case to fraudulently obtain federal summary judgment in the federal case
27 which Remington did not prosecute, and then several years later in 2014-16 Gans worked on and
28
20 owned by the Burl Tree, by the specific criminal acts of the RICO extorting enterprise must be
specifically proven crime by crime and RICO defendant by RICO defendant. After that has been
21
done, the general collusive conspiracy among all of the members traced back to its central
22
leadership and command hierarchy with all of its central offices in the Mitchell firm will follow, and
23
at some point Gans criminal house of cards will topple, and many of the cards will land in
24
deleterious places and positions.
25
Each individual predicate act alleged above is directly damaged Remington and the Burl Tree as
26 adequately specified in detail above, but which will be much further developed after exhaustive
27 discovery in these cases and at which time this RICO statement will be amended and hopefully
28 condensed somewhat, with this document remaining as the basic reference document concerning the
alleged RICO enterprises defendants, near defendants, associates and other suspects, and their
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
723
specific predicate acts which damaged Remington and his business, to the extent that said predicate
1
acts are known with no discovery yet in this case. Remington has truthfully alleged above that he
2
believes there are another 1-2 dozen legitimate examples of the enterprises mail and wire frauds
3
presently existing in Remingtons disorganized files, presently scattered about in about 100 piles
4
over an area of about 1000 ft. After this document has been filed and a few other matters have been
5 addressed, Remington will begin more serious investigatory activity which will involve the
6 assistance of at least two other people, and hopefully others in the criminal investigatory agencies if
7 their assistance can be enlisted.
8 Each RICO act against each individual defendant must be pled, proven and put-together
9 convincingly enough to convince a judge and then eventually a jury. Remington believes he has met
10 that initial burden and that it is now up to Gans and about a dozen of his top assistants and
racketeering gang members to all get together now and defend themselves under oath and with
11
evidence. This criminal extortion racket has gone on far too long, and now it is up to Gans to
12
convince this court in several contamination case juries that he is trustworthy and honorable and it is
13
Remington that is the lying criminal.
14
Hopefully, Gans will backup his state perjuries 110% and attempt to prove that Mathson and his
15 fellow perjuring witnesses were all telling the truth THEN, and now word is really important in the
16 federal form, and it was Remington that was really lying about it all along, then and now. This time
17 Remington will be ready for all that and he is counting on all sworn state testimony and declarations
18 being reiterated and emphasized here in the federal forum where they will subject their false authors
19 to imprisonment, and most especially their master chief drafters, fiction and perjury writers Gans and
20 Plotz.
C. Remington has adequately and exhaustively alleged willfulness, intent and knowledge by
21
all enterprise members at all levels of their crimes against Remington and what the ramifications
22
and objectives of those specific crimes were intended to be. Conspiracy and fraud are also intrinsic
23
to most of Remingtons allegations above, and strong and unmistakable malice and plenty of hate
24
(and also envy and jealousy) have also been adequately demonstrated and proven in the more than
25
110 major acts of violence and property destruction committed against Remingtons property over
26 the last several years. Remington now has enough still photographic and many hours of surveillance
27 video now to incriminate and convict John Mathson and some of his associates in their overriding
28 extortive terror against Remingtons property exerted daily as the background to Gans litigations,
10 and not for future damages. Therefore whatever damages may have been requested back in 2008-
2011 are entirely different than what is requested today or in any three-year period prior to one of
11
these contamination cases.
12
4. For example, the sorting of the bad stuff by Skillings on his loader which occurred around
13
1998 and thereafter was not even discovered until 2014-15 when a variety of new studies and
14
analyses were done by all different experts from those that were involved in either early state or
15 federal case. Very clearly, when one analyzes and understands these cases, there is an can be no
16 eidetic allergies on any issue whatsoever between 2008 Case DR 080678, CV 094547 NJV or
17 DR140426, or this case 10 years later, where everything on the site scientifically, visually and
18 actually is very different, and 100% different in many respects. That said above sorting is a critically
19 important factor in these cases and has been probably been adequately explained above.
20 5. Another crucial factor is that asbestos was not alleged in either 2008-9 complaint, so that
material cant possibly be collateral estoppel from one case to the other because it was not even
21
properly considered in the federal case in the first place. No evidence was ever admitted regarding
22
asbestos from plaintiff and it was never placed at issue in either of his two early complaints and that
23
was simply because it had not even been discovered yet or until 2010. Even after it was discovered it
24
did not become important until much later. Therefore, logically it was nonsense for Judge
25
Reinholtsen to declare it barred from a case being heard 10 years later when it was never properly
26 introduced or ever put at issue in the first place by any complaint or answer, and even Gans and/or
27 the enterprises precursors false introduction into the federal summary judgment proceedings was
28 done improperly and unlawfully through Mischa Schwartz, who was not properly or timely
designated as a Rule 26 federal expert, and importantly wrote his reports and visited the sites illicitly
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
728
and months after discovery had closed. Nevertheless Judge Vadas relied upon him extensively in
1
discussing asbestos improperly in his summary judgment order which then again very improperly
2
led to the unjustifiable barring of all asbestos evidence by Judge Reinholtsen 7-8 years later, see
3
Henry v. Clifford, 32 Cal App. 4Th 315, 321 (1995).
4
Evidently, Remington never presented these issues quite clearly enough for Judge Reinholtsen
5 to grasp his position or what was right on this and many other related issues, however this is a
6 crucial issue and will be extremely prominent coming up in this court and Remington will try
7 again to make it clearer in his Opposition to the enterprises imminent dismissal motion here.
8 I. As rather thoroughly described above, Remington has been gravely deceived by Gans for
9 more than 10 years now and by his RICO enterprise for at least the last four (4). Although gradually
10 and slowly Remington has become less nave and now understands that Gans is a criminal and
nothing that he says is ever likely to be truthful, nevertheless, in the past Remington has reasonably
11
relied on many of defendants frauds which have been explained above. Even Judge Reinholtsen has
12
recognized several of them and, For example, allowed Remington to do some more environmental
13
soil tests in January 2011 because Gans had deceived him about defendants stated false and
14
fraudulent intentions of doing exhaustive soil tests on Remingtons land, but then declined to do so
15 when they noticed that Remington was waiting for defendants testing, and not doing quite enough
16 of his own. Although reliance is not necessary to prove a RICO action, here however there have
17 been literally hundreds of significant issues and events and many of them were relied-upon by
18 Remington believing that a California attorney needed to be and would be ethical in their statements
19 and actions. Now, we understand thats a laugh, but it took quite a few years to fully understand
20 that, because Gans is slippery slick and does just enough normal technical steps to distract you and
essentially throw you off the trail that is really just a wolf in grandmothers clothes. Even a wolf in
21
grandmothers clothes can do some nice things, confuse you and disarm you while resting, thinking
22
and mostly plotting to spring and eat you up.
23
Various examples where the RICO enterprise deceived Remington specifically and Remington
24
had some reasonable degree of reliance thereon, including without limitation: The Esko fraudulent
25
report and fantasy witness situation, wherein Remingtons witnesses attest to the fact that he will
26 never appear to swear under perjury to what he did, which was totally illicit and probably based on a
27 bribe involving Brisso, Martel and others as described above; $20,000 bribe the Mathson arranged
28 and blessed by Gans in order to get Harvey Roberts out of these cases for good, as explained;
Gans Severance Motion Oppositions and DR 080669 related arguments blaming Remington for all
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
729
contamination of both sites here and citing multiple additional perjuring witnesses to back-up that
1
scientific deceit and impossibility, including Randall, Hilfiker and Evans, etc; the Enterprises
2
consistent and continuous threats of major malicious prosecution counterclaims, plus harassment,
3
libel, punitive damages, etc. as described above. Although all of those threats are frivolous and have
4
previously been denied by Judge Reinholtsen in 2015, nevertheless Gans has determined that they
5 have some extortive value and keep Remington worried and afraid, and hopefully ready to withdraw
6 all of his cases and flee from the area if the enterprise just persists with their pressure, threats and
7 real destructive acts showing that they not only mean business, but they intend deadly consequences
8 here eventually. Since Remington is in Pro per, and cannot recover attorneys fees, the RICO
9 enterprise has no downside when they frivolously attack Remington with such above motions which
10 at most could lose them nonexistent attorneys fees, so they keep them up with every single motion.
Remington anticipates countering that imminently however with one or more attorneys to assist
11
with this RICO action and the promise of attorney fees if we are successful, and also has at least one
12
attorney looking to recover attorney fees in DR140426, when we do a special motion there,
13
imminently.
14
J. Pain, suffering and extortion anxiety have been caused by the RICO enterprise and also
15 in the contamination cases by by those different defendants, and where general and various
16 psychological damages would be recoverable under numerous doctrines.
17 The Burl Tree business does not experience pain or suffering and cannot recover such damages
18 under RICO. Also, Remington is not the complaining type, is tough and stoic, can take a lot of
19 physical pain without complaining and he certainly is not fearful or paranoid in any respect. Is
20 used to working alone throughout his career and risks his life almost daily, or certainly used to do so
in his extraordinarily dangerous, life-threatening logging and trucking activities, doing his normal
21
activities all over the north coast.
22
Nevertheless, as was noted above in various sections, Remington does now fear for his life in
23
essence, and at times in recent years and four different reasonable provocations, has taken to actually
24
wearing a bulletproof torso vest, researching other types of related protections including compatible
25
helmets, neck, back and related assess the reason protective wear and also has familiarized himself
26 with pistol and rifle carrying laws in California, which need not be summarized here, and happily,
27 Remingtons grandfather was a national police pistol shooting champion and taught the 7-12-year-
28 old Remington the safe and accurate use of pistols and rifles at a very young age. Also, when he died
Remington inherited his accurate target shooting and beyond gun collection.
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
730
As to the anxiety and obvious effects of extortion, in order to make a RICO claim only
1
attempted extortion is sufficient to complete all elements of a federal crime. Successfully
2
completing the extortion and receiving the property which is the basis of the threat is not necessary.
3
Similarly, blackmail is a crime even if it is not successful, as is attempted arson, which again in this
4
case was almost successful, but Remingtons valiant life-threatening extinguishing of the fire with a
5 permanent hose mounted inside his entryway save the structure and only resulted in severe burns on
6 his back took at least six months to mostly recover from.
7 K. As has been amply described above, but nevertheless is a pretty interesting topic to a deadly
8 serious student of Gans gradually evolving advocacy practices, it is interesting to note going back
9 to December 2007 and Gans first legal demand letter and attempted extortive settlement offer, even
10 then. Rather than do the right thing in early 2008, Gans settlement involved, simply put: Remington
gets to keep all of the contamination, such as was known at that time, and to leave his fence where it
11
is but had to pay all surveying costs, County lot line adjustment fees, and anything else that Gans
12
added-on there, such as his legal fees, all of which would have cost Remington well over $10,000.
13
Had Gans had the decency to split that cost, based on what was known then in the interests of
14
the parties, probably the dispute could have been ended easily then, but happily it was not because
15 Remington would still have the same massive problems, costs, damages and liabilities of several
16 hundred thousand dollars today, HAD he signed-away his interests then, to a greedy and unpleasant
17 advocate, but not a criminal one at that time, at least in regards to Remington.
18 Gans progressively more desperate transition from unpleasant and hyper-aggressive advocacy
19 into gross unethical behavior and now criminality since at least December 2012 into 2013, has been
20 adequately chronicled above, but if the court is interested in hearing more, or seeing another several
hundred pages on it, Remington could copy that out of his files easily, whereas virtually everything
21
written in these 1200 or more pages is not copied and is original writing coming from Remingtons
22
memory and quite a few written records. Therefore, in that regard if Remington were asked to
23
certify all of these documents under penalty of perjury and also swear that if called upon he could
24
and would competently testify about anything that has been written in any of these documents, he
25
could and would do so. Obviously he might have to do another clear-headed total proofreading of all
26 of these documents all at once, without deadlines, implied or otherwise, and all over perhaps a one
27 week period where these long documents were not continuously crashing or threatening to do so
28 many times each page, and where he could make everything here consistent, which it cannot be
10 caused serious financial losses to Remington and the Burl Tree property of all types which are
named above, destroying Remingtons present business prospects, and ability to cut any burls;
11
destroying Remingtons ability to show retail or wholesale customers around his Burl inventory, or
12
to conduct any viable burl cutting, finishing, drying, storing or stacking operations. Additionally, as
13
explained defendants have destroyed or than $100,000 of valuable rare plants and roses which
14
eventually were projected for sale as they grow too large and in many cases put out runners and
15 multiply. Remington spent a large amount of money on at least 30,000 rare non-native plants
16 originally, and has had the intent to sell some of them as they mature all along. That is still possible,
17 however huge losses are now being taken. In other words, as explained in detail above, Gans RICO
18 enterprise interferes with all present, future and perspective business relations which Remington has
19 or anticipated, and those losses have seriously undermined Remingtons financial stability and his
20 businesses viability with present damages and estimated future damages estimated above in various
different sections.
21
O. Give land and stop torment. As has been sufficiently outlined above and specified in detail
22
also, Gans basic premise and modus operandi has been concisely condensed in recent years and was
23
summarized twice clearly by Gans directly to Remington during 2016: the first time on the telephone
24
and the second time in the courthouse corridors during a hearing break. Simply put, he offered the
25
following extortive quid pro quo: End your case and we will end your torture. The micro-
26 recorded version, for impeachment, of one of those conversations, of course used more circumspect
27 language.
28
20 that Remington can easily prove his RICO and environmental contamination claims under the exact
facts which have been fully set forth above.
21
Those facts will no doubt be augmented, refined and in some cases changed to reflect the
22
discovered realities, but Remington believes in following the truth and in any event will not lie or
23
misrepresent what the facts eventually show. Maybe Remington is just too old-fashioned to get with
24
the present trends of false facts, fake news and generally lying about anything which is
25
convenient, or at least appears to be in the short run. Remington does not have the good memory that
26 Gans has and could not possibly keep up with the deceptive webs, strange meanings and twists put
27 to the known scientific facts to formulate his frivolous defense. Under a smart, clever well-prepared
28 cross-examination Remington very much doubts that Gans will be able to do so either, as his facts,
hundreds of false misleading and deliberately deceptive statements and writings have become far too
REMINGTONS RICO STATEMENT-OCTOBER 2016 THROUGH MARCH 2017.
735
weird to be supported during a sworn deposition or on a witness stand, but maybe Gans will surprise
1
Remington, but thats very doubtful. Gans is smart, sneaky, deceptive and corrupt but he would need
2
a photographic memory to keep up with all of his deceptive and disingenuous motion statements for
3
the last nine years. Ironically, during the hearing in June 2016 Gans made that exact claim to
4
Remington over some document saying in effect, we will eventually verify on the transcript: I
5 know that is true because I have a photographic memory. He went on to botch-up the facts that
6 even Remington had memorized with his old 75-year-old memory; then, over the next 10 days or so
7 Remington recalls laughing and scoffing at Gans, sitting 6-feet away at the same table on at least
8 three occasions, when Gans made especially stupid mistakes of recall, saying I thought you had
9 the photographic memory!, which he obviously does not, and at some point court court got
10 irritated with Remington for scorning Gans that way several different times. Remington had initially
believed that maybe Gans did have a good memory, but the court obviously knew better, and must
11
have thought that Gans was kidding when he said it the first time. Remington being the gullible
12
person that he is, did initially believe that maybe Gans did have an excellent memory, but never
13
showed-it-off much, however sitting next to Gans during various continuous discussions, basically
14
just between him the court and Remington, for more than 110-straight days for about three hours
15 each session, Remington eventually learned that Gans is not all that smart and relies on his young
16 apprentice Plotz to do most of his research, and probably McBride does the rest of it. Clearly the
17 photographic memory thing is a lazy defense mechanism that he uses whatever he does not have
18 proof and is uncertain of his recall of some less than crucial fact, that he assumes Remington will not
19 be able to refute, so blurts out some false fact, and then proves it with that statement, which is very
20 easy to refute when you have the correct dated document in your hands.
All that does is go back to the statement Remington made 50-100 pages ago which simply put
21
was: dont believe anything that Gans says about anything lessee presents actual authentic
22
documentary proof and also swears to that fact under penalty of perjury. That latter act is significant,
23
because whatever Gans swears under penalty of perjury and often knows that he is actually wrong
24
about something, then he is very careful and very rarely commits direct false perjury, or falsely
25 declares testifies about something, when he knows that there is easily obtainable evidence out there
26 that can sink him with just one lie. Probably any attorney would be similarly cautious, but here since
27 Gans knows that Remington is just waiting to trap them in another liar to provable on the record, he
28 is especially careful, and almost never slips up in a major way. That is until now when he is going to