2017 Fed Final, 279, 7-14-17,#799 Libre

1
Bruce Remington, In Pro per

2 5149 Blackberry Lane Eureka, CA 95503
Telephone: 707-666-9145
3 Email: Brucerem@suddenlink.net
4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
) CASE NUMBER Jury Trial Demanded. VOLUME I
8 Bruce Remington, )_______
) BRUCE REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL
9 ) COMPLAINT FOR CONTINUING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES
) FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, REMEDIATION, INJUNCTIVE &
10 ) DECLARATIVE RELIEF, AND ASSUMPTION OF FEDERAL
) SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY, RULES 65, 57 & 11 USC 1367:
11 Plaintiff, )
) 1. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AS TO CE IN DR080678 (Rule 57);
12 ) 2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, UNDER TSCA, 15 USC 2601-2627;
) 3. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CAA, 42 USC 7401-7671g;
13 ) 4. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER CWA 33 USC 1251-1387 (2000);
) 5. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER SDWA, 42 USC 300f-300j-26;
14 vs. ) 6. CONTINUING SUCCESSIVE RCRA VIOLATIONS,
) REMEDIATION & DAMAGES, 42 USC 6901-6992k, 7002;
15 ) 7. SUCCESSIVE CERCLA RELIEF, 42 USC 9601-9662, CFR 302.4;
) 8. GANS VIOLATIONS OF THE VWPA of 1982, 18 USC 1512-15;
16 ) 9. FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS, 31 USC 3729 (a) (1) (A & G);
) 10. INJUNCTION FOR RETAINING WALL, 28 USC 1367;
17 John and Joy Mathson; ) 11. ORDER MATHSON PROPERTY INSPECTION & DISCOVERY;
) 12. REMEDIATION OF AND DAMAGES FOR PRIVATE
18 DOES 1-20; RAO ) AND PUBLIC NUISANCE, CACI 2030;
) 13. ABATEMENT OF PRIVATE NUISANCE, CACI 2030;
19 Construction, Inc., Rich ) 14. CONTINUING TRESPASS FROM 2013-17, CACI 2030;
) 15. ABATEMENT OF CONTINUING TRESPASS, 2030;
20 Olson, owner and responsible ) 16. UNJUST ENRICHMENT VERSUS RESTITUTION;
) 17. STATE NEGLIGENCE & NEGLIGENCE PER SE CLAIMS;
21 party, Kyle Skillings, agent; ) 18. ADJUDICATION OF 10 OTHER PENDANT STATE CLAIMS:
) INTENTIONAL FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION (CACI
22 Morgan Randall; City of ) 1900); CONCEALMENT (CACI 1901); MISREPRESENTATION
) (CACI 1906); CONSPIRATORIAL COLLUSION (CACI 3600);
23 Eureka: Boyd Davis, 1998 ) ON-GOING CONSPIRACY (CACI 3601); AIDING AND ABETTING
) (CACI 3610); FELONY VANDALISM (PENAL CODE 594);
24 Public Works Director, c/o ) VANDALISM AND TRESPASS BY ANIMALS (CACI 464);
) SANCTIONS FOR SYSTEMATIC SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE;
25 Cyndey Day-Wilson; Jeff ) SANCTIONS FOR EXTENSIVE CCP 128.7 ETHICS VIOLATIONS
) BY ATTORNEYS, GANS, PLOTZ AND BRISSO; VIOLATIONS
26 Nelson, CEO of SHN, ) OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17, 200, ET
) SEQ; TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, CACI 2201;
27 personally; ) 19. CONCLUSIONS & ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES RELIEF;
) 20. OTHER RELIEF REQUESTED: ALL DETRIMENT, COSTS,
28 Jon Kishpaugh, ) EXPENSES, GENERAL, SPECIAL, EMOTIONAL AND PUNITIVE
) DAMAGES, ETC, ACCORDING TO PROOFS AT TRIAL. _________
) VOLUME II: RICO CAUSES OF ACTION.
) 21. SPECIFIC DAMAGES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS;
) 22. RICO DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS OF 18 USC 1962 (c);
) 23. CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO AMONG ALL ASSOCIATED
Defendants. ) RICO ENTERPRISE MEMBERS, 18 USC 1962 (d);
) 24. DAMAGES AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF UNDER RICO.
REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
1
1. Preface. Plaintiff, BRUCE REMINGTON, comes now to bring this successive civil action
2
against Defendants John and Joy Mathson (hereafter Mathson, or Mathsons); RAO Construction,
3
Rich Olson (hereafter RAO) and his agent Kyle Skillings; Morgan Randall, an individual
4
(trespasser, vandal and polluter); The City of Eureka (Boyd Davis for knowing, felonious
5
ASBESTOS disposal violations) and Jon Kishpaugh, to request specific FEDERAL COURT
6 actions, ORDERS and related RELIEF under the following causes of action described below.
7
I. NATURE OF THIS ACTION:
8
2. Preface and brief summary statements. This case is mostly about JUSTICE and the
9
total lack thereof for Remington in more than 10-years of litigation now, since 2006.
10
Is it unjust in California to bury two (2+) million pounds of toxic wastes in your neighbors
11
redwood forest and then battle 10-20 years with unlimited financial and legal resources to force
12
him to leave it there? That is probably the basic question here. To date, the answer has been no,
13
however these cases are not quite yet over.
14
Despite defendants deceptions, perjury, multiple frauds, collusive conspiracies, political
15
influence and unlimited defense budget, Remingtons reasonable expectation has always been that:
16
if the LION got away, under the English common law, as used famously in the Karen Silkwood
17
case by Gerry Spence, THEY must pay for all detriment caused thereby.
18
What that was supposed to mean here is: Defendants intentionally buried their
19
contamination on Remingtons land and now the expectations and in conferences have been that
20
they must remove it, and restore the land to its original condition. Well, that has not happened here
21
and the reason is that tricky and corrupt attorneys, with unlimited financial backing can keep a case
22
like this going until all parties die, and the heirs are too tired by that time to continue the fight.
23
3. Very Brief Case History: Beginning in 1998 and still continuing today, all the named
24
defendants conspired in a highly profitable criminal enterprise to illegally locate, haul, dump, bury
25
and further conceal several million pounds of hazardous contaminated materials ON Remingtons
26
adjacent land, See Photos #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 & #15, and actually MOST of photos and charts in
27
Volume III.
28
Those multiple felonies were discovered about eleven (11) years ago, in January 2006, have
been fully admitted to by defendants in August 2016, and therefore civil liability for the
trespassing encroachment and resultant nuisance has been fully acknowledged and established.

2
1
2 Remington now wants defendants and their insurers to remove all contaminated pollutants
3 and non-native toxic materials from his land at their expense, plus to recover his major litigation
4 expenses for 9+ years, costs of suit and all damages proximately caused by defendants unlawful
5 torts. Two related successive action state cases are presently on-going in Humboldt County, but
6 lack of sufficient and proper judicial resources here have brought these cases to a present stand-
7 still, with almost no significant progress made towards remediation and resolution in more than ten
8 (10) years now. Remington has received little judicial cooperation in Humboldt County, so now
9 seeks justice, retribution and restitution (literally) in an environmentally friendlier San Francisco
10 federal court.
5. Plaintiff therefore seeks declaratory relief against defendants as described in detail
11
below, injunctive relief to CLEAN-UP Defendants hazardous contaminated materials discharges,
12
e. g. PHOTO #s 12 & #15, and now many others too numerous to name here; control the
13
effects of present real time continuing subterranean water contamination, See Photos #7 & #8;
14
and/or other discharges, migrations in air, water and soils, or surface erosion and slides of toxic or
15 any type of fill materials (see photo # 6, etc of typical dumps surface); and remediate and
16 restore Remingtons land impacted by defendants to its original pristine condition, i.e. like photos
17 #19-22 and #61-75, ETC; prohibit and discourage future defendants dumping violations, toxic
18 materials slides and subterranean oozing, discharges or movement downwards onto Remingtons
19
lands by gravity forces, e.g. photo #5 & #s 12-15, see also #s 42-60, etc; the imposition of civil
penalties as designated by law, and the other just relief as explained in detail below for:
20
Defendants violations of Californias nuisance, trespass, negligence, criminal and fraud laws (as
21
explained below) as well as for their blatant violations of the CWA, DTSC, TSCA, SDWA, and
22
CAA sections cited prohibiting the discharge of hydrocarbons, asbestos, lead and other pollutants
23
into air, soils and waters of the United States; for their blatant violations of the RCRAs standards
24
and regulations applicable to the transport, dumping, permanent disposal, storage, burial and
25 concealment of contaminated, toxic and/or hazardous wastes; for defendants continued violations
26 from 2013-16 of the RCRAs prohibition against creating an imminent and substantial
27 endangerment to human health and the environment, as officially declared on August 2, 2011
28 by John Aveggio, principle scientist at SHN; and for their dumping and disposal offenses and
subsequent failures to report their large toxic releases under CERCLA/EPCRA requirement, see
e.g. Photo Chart # 26, etc.
6. Plaintiff also seeks complete, statutorily reasonable remediation under Federal jurisdictional
law, the Constitution and applicable California law, including the continuing nuisance/trespass
3
1
cases and specific authorities cited under CACI 2030, such as Mangini I-III, Starrh, Lyle, etc.; all
2
removal, testing, retaining wall and fence rebuilding costs as incurred in the applicable time
3
period; and the many other costs, special, general, emotional, LOL, statutory, treble trespass (as
4
appropriate) and punitive damages listed in the Relief Requested Section below, including all
5
attorneys fees, paralegal fees, filing fees, transportation costs, expert fees, physical injury costs
6 and damages, and all the other costs paid-out or as listed and/or incurred in bringing this action.
7 7. Plaintiff additionally and initially in fall 2016 sought federal district court relief against
8 State case attorney Russell Gans for serial ethics violations of many, and virtually ALL California
9 Rules of Professional Ethical Conduct, complained about since 2011; BUT now in 2017 HERE IN,
10 VOLUME II, Civil RICO, alleging CRIMINAL violations of the 18 federal Predicate acts
delineated below.
11
SEE RICO COMPLAINT, IN VOLUME II OF THIS LAWSUIT, with contamination
12
allegations in Volume I and TWO RICO causes of action plus allegations, in Volume II. Insert
13
Y on pages 685-722 of Remingtons comprehensive RICO STATEMENT, summarizes the
14
unethical and quasi-unlawful practices and specific conduct of Gans and his RICO leadership, all
15
housed in the Mitchell law firms office building, whereas the CRIMINAL federal predicate RICO
16 acts alleged against Gans are found at approximately pages 10-94 of said RICO statement, but still
17 move around somewhat due to major additions through-out these documents, too complex to
18 constantly re-index.
19 8. Without limitation, Gans has routinely violated B & PC 6068 (d) and California Rule
20 of professional Trial Conduct 5-200 (A) by NOT only employing such measures as are consistent
21
with the truth and (B) BY MISLEADING JUDGES AND JURIES by misleading artifices and
false statements of fact and law. Additionally, Gans routinely violates Rule 5-220 by suppressing
22
evidence that he has the legal obligation to reveal (e.g.,when Schwartz investigated asbestos, the
23
twin pipes TRUTH, Mathsons vandalism, perjuries and serial spoliation of evidence); Gans has
24
made numerous provable false statements of material fact at preliminary trial proceedings,
25
violating Model Rule 3.3; is DISHONEST in most dealings with plaintiff; fails to make proper
26
disclosures; plagiarizes federal judges ORDERS and never discloses contrary authorities.
27 Cumulative violations of his primary attorney oaths are grounds for disbarment, especially under
28 CCP 128.7, where ALL elements are violated1. These have been complained of before and
plaintiffs last 128.7 motion in state court, but based on federal transgressions mostly, was
Denied at this time in 2014 by Judge Watson.
1. See Remingtons RICO statement, Volume IV A-C, ENTIRE, for many more ethical statute violation
citations.
4
1
9. NOW, here, Remington has more SERIOUS complaints: Actual, provable criminal
2
activity, perjury and MAJOR suborning of perjury by Gans trial witnesses, led by John Mathson,
3
and the THAT perjury was coached and supported by 4 other minor witnesses, who all told false
4
stories supporting Mathson without ANY of the 4 others actually hearing any words or statements
5
from Remington, but just supported the fact that some conversations purportedly occurred in
6 1998 as reported by John Mathson. NO conversations occurred between Mathson and Remington
7 because Remington was NOT there at all, as said Gans witnesses had been scripted to LIE. This
8 issue is not major going forward at the next trials on THESE issues herein; however, Remington
9 expects MORE suborned perjury produced and fabricated to be consistent with state perjury going
10 forward in this federal case, but now we can conduct more depositions and submit interrogatories,
etc. to avert those convenient defendant fabrications of evidence, as needed.
11
In this forum, in September 2016, Remington now asserts and will PROVE:
12
10. Gans violated The Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, 18 USC 1512-15 and
13
related 18 USC chapter 73-OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE sections by a variety of defendants
14
WITNESS TAMPERING felonies, as discussed below, and especially in VOLUME II-RICO
15
COMPLAINT, Supplemented by Volume IV.
16 11. 5A. 1512 (b); Gans corruptly persuaded another person (his own witnesses, including
17 without limitation: John Mathson, Joy Mathson, Gary Costa, Jon Kishpaugh, Kyle Skillings,
18 Michael Pulley, Ferriman, Schwartz and Morgan Randall, etc), PLUS MOST OF HIS OWN LAW
19 PARTNERS, as specifically discussed and designated in Volume II, and simultaneously engaged in
20 misleading conduct towards same and plaintiff Remington after suborning surprise perjury from
21
said above witnesses in July 2016 at a jury trial. That behavior when proven is a FELONY.
12. Similarly, Gans violated 1512 (b) (2) (A-B) by fraudulently inducing said above
22
defendants witnesses to withhold their truthful honestly recalled testimony at said above jury trial
23
and falsely swear to Gans perjurious scripts which were false and untrue. Also 1512 (b) (3) of that
24
section was violated by Gans hindering and preventing the communication to a state judge
25
information related to state and federal crimes, which were involved in these proceedings and further
26
committed and exacerbated by the above acts. Also, under 1512 (c) Gans corruptly supervised
27 John Mathsons destruction and mutilation of asbestos pipes (e.g. Photos #54-55), asphalt, concrete
28 chunks, and related material evidence on the DUMP SITES and also CONCEALED material
information related to many aspects of this litigation since 2011, including his failures to meet and
confer (and then lying about that), all the other complaints made previously by Remington to be
repeated as relevant, and especially Gans perjury to Judge Reinholtsen on May 15 2016 about the
twin Pipes being perforated which they ARE NOT. They are Solid and Gans knows that.
5
1
13. Finally, by the above acts and especially the SURPRISE major material perjuries
2
arranged and disclosed on the day of Opening Statements, Gans intentionally harassed Remington
3
and his honest testimony at said above July 2016 trial. Gans now has the burden during federal
4
special interrogatories and depositions here of PROVING that all his above witnesses had such
5
perfect RECALL of insignificant events 18 years before, as to exact details and dates, even.
6 14. 5B. Under 18 USC 1515 (a) (3) (A-E) (definitions) Gans practiced extensive
7 misleading conduct and perpetuated multiple frauds, as most recently revealed in the RICO
8 statement pages 8-83, by:
9 A. Knowingly making numerous false statements at the SOL trial on the record and in
10 various pre-trial proceedings, as related to said twin pipes and what his witnesses Mathson and
Skillings would say about Remingtons Discovery of the contamination and encroachments
11
PRIOR to 2006, i.e. in 1998, before Remington knew anything about said encroachments.
12
Coaching 5 witnesses to systematically corroborate each others blatant PERJURY is not only
13
omitting facts but was FALSE, under 1512-15;
14
B. Intentionally omitting information from many statements thereby causing them to be
15
misleading, and also frequently CONCEALING (many) material facts, and thereby creating a false
16 impression by such statements, of his own and as he suborned perjury from said above witnesses;
17 C. Gans submitted false Answers to Special Interrogatories in 2011 and then lied about
18 them in 2016, and also presented SJ motions (writings) to the state court which were entirely false
19 plagiarized statements attributed to a Federal Judge in quotation marks, which were untrue, very
20 material to the motion and prejudicial to Remington, but were NOT made by said judge;
21
D. At the SOL trial Gans presented numerous photos and at least one map, intended for
prejudice only and misrepresented their merit to Judge Reinholtsen and the jury;
22
E. Gans routinely uses a trick, scheme or device with the intent to mislead the COURT
23
usually or plaintiff, and now any jury that Gans goes near. For example, in Voir Dire here in July
24
2016, Gans emphasized his COACHING OF WITNESSES AND wanted to make sure no juror
25
would hold that against him or the Mathsons. That coaching was not only improper and NOT
26
sanctioned by the Court but eventually turned-out to be SUBORNING PERJURY (18 USC
27 1621-22) when the surprise coached testimony was first revealed at Gans Opening right
28 before Remingtons, causing major alterations in plaintiffs case which never were properly
implemented, under all the circumstances.
F. Finally, Gans acted CORRUPTLY in all the above, as per 1515 (b) by: acting with an
improper purpose both personally and by influencing another, including making a false or
misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other
6
1
information. Gans violated that clause in numerous ways especially as to the verbal false
2
statements by ALL defendants and their counsel, including Mr. Plotz.
3
15. Russell Gans SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, 18 USC 1621-22. Gans has
4
recently risen to new heights of deceit, deception and criminality recently in the July-August 2016
5
SOL trial recently concluded in a favorable verdict for defendants. Gans and PLOTZ coached 5
6 major witnesses to LIE, follow and exact false, perjurious script and to testify that Remington had
7 walked the fill with John Mathson TWICE in 1998, rather than the true ZERO times, and made
8 that stick in a week of cross-examination, where the jury believed John Mathson and his lying
9 supporters, well-coached by Gans.
10 15. Gans WON there. Perjury and evil triumphed and defendants thought the case was
OVER, but Remington disagrees and believes that JUSTICE should, can and WILL eventually
11
prevail, hence THIS new suit in a new forum. The paragraphs above and below related to 1512
12
further cover this issue, but over the next few years, Remington expects MORE coached perjury
13
from this cast and from the others yet to enter the theatre or stage, including Olson Randall and
14
Joy Mathson. NEW perjury in THIS court is now likely and required to back-up the cover-ups now
15
undergoing all areas here, especially the RICO allegations addressed below.
16 15A. Originally, Remingtons two major RICO causes of action were intended to blend-in
17 here in 5-10 pages, but additional research and Discovery led to the 660+ or so pages in Volume II,
18 so THESE Volume I comments are merely a general preface to the RICO allegations fully set-forth
19 there in the two causes of action and 570+ page RICO statement. Remington will do a complete
20 rewrite of all of this in about a year, as new facts develop and old facts are understood in proper
21
perspective.
16. IMPORTANTLY, and as explained in great detail in VOLUME II-RICO Violations,
22
AND in the attached RICO Statement, vOLUME IV (738 PAGES), which supersedes this early
23
discussion written in September 2016, before the RICO case was understood, researched, or
24
organized fully:
25
Attorney R.S. Gans, esq. criminally violated the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 371 by
26
intimidating and extorting Remington and the Burl Tree for many years with believable
27 threats, and instilled real FEAR in Remington and hence damaged and virtually destroyed the Burl
28 Tree, which severely deleteriously interfered with interstate commerce, as described below.
17. The Burl Tree IS Bruce Remington today, and vice versa as he is its sole employee,
profit center and purchaser and manufacturer, and has been since about 1995.
Overall, since 2008, the Burl Tree, which is synonymous with Remingtons profit-
making business interests, has reduced (I.e LOST) combined SALES plus PURCHASES in
7
1
interstate commerce by about $150,000 per year. That is a DAMAGE. 95% of the Burl Trees
2
sales and purchases historically are out-of-state and hence interstate commerce.
3
18. The Burl Tree owns MOST of the 832 Westgate structures and property and
4
especially the land encroached upon and ruined by Mathson and defendants. The gardens and all
5
expensive plants and equipment on that site is owned, operated and controlled by the Burl Tree,
6 which pays taxes on it, and always has. WHAT AFFECTS AND DESTROYS PROPERTY OR
7 VALUE AT 832 WESTGATE IS REALLY A LOSS TO THE BURL TREE and hence to interstate
8 commerce which is almost ALL of the business it does, i.e. virtually nothing locally or in
9 California, since the 1990s.
10 19. Gans has intimidated Remington, and hence the Burl Tree (see #1) since about
2008. When Remington is intimidated and his time is 100% tied-up by Gans, Mathson and this
11
litigation, then the Burl Tree is stymied and/or stalemated. Gans intimidations and threats have
12
become EXTORTION, as recently as the corridor in June 2016 about how Allied was angry and
13
they want their costs back so wont settle... instilled real economic fear and the specter of
14
business losses in Remington (and the Burl Tree) causing Remington to work longer and harder
15
and to do NOTHING for the Burl Tree, SEE RICO STATEMENT #2A, PAGES 6-74. As above
16 that had a major effect on interstate commerce to the extent that the Burl Tree affects it. However
17 the issue is NOT whether the Burl Tree effects interstate commerce enough to be noticed in
18 Washington or elsewhere, but whether Gans actions of instilling fear affected interstate commerce
19 by knocking-out 95% of the Burl Trees business which was ALL previously done in interstate
20 commerce, and hence was a LOSS thereto now, whether minimal or NOT in the grand world
21
economic scheme. Gans had a Major FEAR AND INHIBITING EFFECT ON Remington, the Burl
Tree and hence interstate commerce by eliminating 95% of a businesses interstate commerce
22
buying and selling of about $150,000 per year in the previous 20 years. Prior to that sales and
23
impacts were much HIGHER.
24
20. Specifically, Gans attempted to extort Remington to give-up his just contamination
25
lawsuits, learn to accept Mathsons unlawful encroachments, occupancy, APPROPRIATION and
26
strong-arm extortion of all uses of his land by not paying rent OF $12,000 PER YEAR for almost
27 20 years. Remington has tried to gain justice for that unlawful appropriation and theft of his
28 valuable productive land adjacent to Mathsons back yard but with utter futility. That Gans
intimidation and extortion amounted to $12,000 per year in RENT alone, plus the other lost
$150,000 to lost interstate commerce opportunities, plus the RUINED unsalable land which also is
a Burl Tree asset, hence a loss to the business of another $300,000+ to prorate among some
number of years from about 2008 to the present, since the total damages to the land were not
8
1
known, understood or realized until at least late 2008-2011. Remington is TRYING to get his land
2
cleaned-up, restored in value and returned in original condition, but after 10 years and many
3
hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs, lost revenues and valuable legal time SPENT and
4
squandered, Remington to date has NOTHING beyond a plan forward, increasing experience and
5
litigatory SKILLS, knowledge of Gans deceit and his CRIMINAL, felonious enterprise and
6 plenty of HOPE. All of that is explained in great detail in the RICO statement at pages 311-
7 313 and 489-513.
8 Allied Insurance is backing Gans with the SAME objectives: CRUSH Remington 100% like
9 a slug on a sidewalk, and with Remington so goes the Burl Tree as no successor is in place there.
10 21. Burl Tree Damaged. Additionally, 10+ years of litigation has depleted nearly all liquid
Burl Tree assets, especially with few incoming sales, and what we do have are 100% interstate
11
commerce. The result is that Gans and Allieds intimidation and severe THREATS have nearly
12
shut-down the Burl Tree and adversely affected interstate commerce. Hence Gans criminal acts in
13
combination with Mathsons encroachments and criminality are BOTH actionable under this
14
federal statute, 18 USC 1951 (a) and (b) and 371.
15
22. The FEAR and resource losses specifically and deliberately put into Remington translated
16 directly into the business the Burl Tree and resulted in reduced to often total business inactivity, i.e.
17 reduced to ZERO for many months at a time, with NO buying or SELLING of the half a million
18 dollar inventory now on hand consisting of many products.
19 23. GANS RICO ENTERPRISE IS ACHIEVING ITS GOALS, [See RICO statement
20 (RS): 371-91]. Russell Gans, Allied, defendants and in fact THE ENTIRE RICO ENTERPRISE and
21
its collusive, powerful criminal conspiracy, sworn in effect to, at a minimum, STOP all Remington
and Burl Tree commerce and fruitful activity, by their systematic perjurious cover-up of said
22
enterprise, crime and torts in support of it, have pretty much been successful in their goals. It took
23
hundreds of thousands of dollars, about a dozen witnesses (with MANY more scheduled when the
24
actual contamination trial begins), more than half (5) committing blatant provable trial perjury on the
25
transcribed record so far.
26
24. ALL of the rest of defendants witnesses are also being carefully, disingenuously and
27 unlawfully coached and taught by Gans, which therefore REQUIRES and will absolutely result in
28 much or most of what they will say being, or what they already have said, was ERRONEOUS,
misleading, mischaracterized or just blatantly false, even if not sworn perjury in court, YET.
Perjury now absolutely must follow from all of Gans witnesses to be consistent with their hundreds
of precedential false facts and perjurious statements, now already made during the 6-8 months of
2016 pretrial and trial proceedings, on the stenographic record.
9
1
25. That absolutely underlines the brilliance of RICO. All of Gans 35+ RICO enterprise
2
members now must be carefully coached and rehearsed to lie, misrepresent, mischaracterize and
3
commit provable perjury, in order to be consistent with Gans disingenuous, corrupt state court
4
record, and now in federal discovery the enterprise will either have to give-up or risk imprisonment,
5
public scorn and exposure of their criminality and lack of integrity, and worse, by about half of
6 their members, creating the exact quandary which RICO was intended to do by the Congress.
7 Now, the hundreds of major crimes against Remingtons business property by Mathson,
8 Skillings, the Kishpaughs, et al, can and will be ascribed to the Godfather and his inner circle as
9 fully specified in Volume II, and the enterprises top managing leadership, corrupt inner circle, and
10 other previously untouchable, participating and advisory emeritus, chairman of the board types
within the Mitchell, Mathews, SHN, Blue Rock and other organizations) can expect the worst
11
punishments.
12
26. Those basic elements and comments above show GANS, the contamination and RICO
13
defendants, the charges against them and of course we already have MORE detail now than when
14
this was drafted over several months, and will gather MUCH more in Discovery here, as serious
15
investigatory time permits.
16 27. THEREFORE, decisive, conclusive, Draconian and FINAL actions are now requested by
17 this Federal Court as outlined herein, because State relief has been too slow, ineffectual, indifferent,
18 unmotivated, uncertain, and also entirely nonexistent for nearly 10 years now, as the entire Westgate
19 surrounding environment has been contaminated, by air-borne toxins and by all water runoff, as
20 explained in thousands of pages of both state and federal case motion documents.
21
II. INTRODUCTION
22
28. One central purpose of this action is a request for clarification of the ISSUES FINALLY
23
DETERMINED in Remingtons prior Federal judgment, now unintelligible in State Court. It is also a
24
request for adjudication of the large variety of related issues and actual controversies cited and not
25
now reasonably resolvable in Eureka California State Court, as said court is presently constituted. It is
26
also a citizens enforcement action brought to penalize the criminal polluters, restore Remingtons
27 adjacent redwood forest to pristine condition and further to: remove the contaminants from, abate,
28 remediate, and cleanup Remingtons damaged land (per photos), and to otherwise prevent and control
the toxic discharges of environmentally harmful pollutants emanating from the MANY hundreds of
tons of foreign and poisonous filling materials the Mathsons dumped first on their own property, e.g.
PHOTOS #2- #6, #s 12-15, #25-31, etc., where they carefully sorted them and put the WORST

10
1
toxins as to all criteria onto Remingtons land, repeatedly, layer upon layer, like a regular landfill, see
2
ALL photos and specifically relevant here are #s 1-15, #s 23-26, #42-45, #49-51 and #56, etc.
3
A. Many toxic and deleterious objects which the Mathsons refused to keep on their property,
4
were also deliberately placed on, or beneath, the surface of plaintiffs adjacent property sharply below,
5
and then concealed with brush, e.g. Photos #5, 6, 12-15, and those cited above.
6 B. Abatement of this site includes placing a deep perforated drainage pipe at the very bottom of
7 the debris on the uphill side of the needed retaining wall to capture and control the toxic flows of water
8 and water borne contaminants from said dumped pollutants which now flow daily directly into
9 plaintiffs ground waters, gardens, swamp, into Remington Creek, and thereafter into the public
10 waters below. This action is further brought to enforce the publics right to know about such dumped
toxins and harmful discharges (including the extensive air-borne contaminants cited herein) from the
11
Mathson property, from where they now rest on Remingtons property. Therefore, plaintiff, Bruce
12
Remington is suing his adjacent northern neighbors, defendants and all of the OTHERS named herein
13
on the grounds individually described throughout, for CONTINUING violations of the codes cited
14
above, namely CWA, TSCA, CAA, SDWA, RCRA, and CERCLA; and also for the specific types of
15
Nuisance, Trespass and Negligence causes alleged herein, plus the numerous additional, specific fraud,
16 vandalism, criminal, tort violations and other miscellaneous statutes cited herein, see Photo Chart
17 #26.
18 III. JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
19 29. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this court on multiple grounds:
20 By Section 505 (a) (1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1365 (a) (1), which states in relevant part that,
21
any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf against any personwho is alleged to
be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitationor (B) an order issued by the administrator
22
or a state with respect to such a standard or limitation. For purposes of Section 505, the term
23
citizen means a person or persons having an interest which is or may be adversely affected.
24
30. Jurisdiction is further conferred upon this court by RCRA 7002 (a) & (b), 42 U.S.C. 6972
25
(a) & (b) and 28 U.S.C. 1221 (an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the
26
Constitution and laws of the United States), which states in part that, any person may commence a
27 civil action on his own behalf (A) against any person who has contributed or who is contributing
28 to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal of any solid or
hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the
environment.
31. Further, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all State-based claims in this
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, as those claims form part of the same case or controversy
11
1
as the Federal causes of action. Here, there are numerous state claims which are not being timely,
2
effectively or adequately handled currently in state Superior Court in Eureka, California, see Photo
3
#23, #1 and #s 13-15.
4
32. Plaintiff Remington, his neighbors and active supporters and fellow sympathetic public
5
nuisance/trespass Plaintiffs reside in the vicinity of Westgate Drive and Remington Creek, (in and
6 BEYOND the views of Photos #1 & #16). They are also adjacent to, derive livelihoods from, own
7 property near, and/or recreate on, in or near and/or otherwise use, enjoy and benefit from the forests
8 and waterways connected to the Remington Creek watershed and the associated and/or connected
9 natural soils, mixed redwood forests and the various associated above and below-ground water
10 courses into which defendants directly discharged pollutants, or allowed them to infiltrate said
waters; By which, defendants said above discharge and permanent disposal violations adversely
11
affect their above interests, water and natural environment, in violation of CWA 301 (a), 33 U.S.C.
12
1311 (a), CWA 505 (a) (1), 33 U.S.C. 1365 (a) (1), CWA 402, 33 U.S.C. 1342 and RCRA 7002
13
(a) (1) (B), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (a) (1) (B).
14
33. The health, economic, recreational, aesthetic and environmental interests of plaintiff and
15
his surrounding neighbors have been since 1998, are still being, will likely continue to be and are
16 likely to be adversely affected for the indefinite future by defendants past unlawful violations,
17 which continue and vary daily in their varying adverse polluting and contaminating effects, in
18 soils, air and waters, as per Photos #5, #7, #8 and #s 12-15, etc.
19 34. Plaintiff and this adjacent community therefore contend that there exists an actual
20 controversy herein caused by said above continuing injuries in fact to them physically and to their
21
environment, which worsens in magnitude at times as it continues, and causes variations on the
specific conduct complained of by plaintiff to OTHER members of this immediate community; and,
22
said continuing, varying injuries caused by defendants complained of conduct herein, is expected to
23
continue indefinitely, unless the requested relief is ORDERED which will redress most and probably
24
ALL of the said complained of herein injuries. Remediation and removal of ALL non-native materials
25
photographed herein is requested, and will CONTINUE to be until achieved.
26
35. On or about May 27, 2009 plaintiff originally provided written notice of Mathsons
27 violations of RCRA, and of his intent to file suit against them to Mathsons attorneys (the Mathsons
28 themselves refused to accept service), to the Administrators of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency-Region IX and in Washington D.C., the Executive Director of the State Water
Resources Control Board, California River Watch, and the U.S Attorney General as required by the
statutes sued under. No response of any kind was received from any governmental agencies, who
inferentially may have been impeded by various defendants attorneys (e.g. Brisso, Gans and Kluck)
12
1
with connections in Eurekas high places and well-beyond. An updated version of that letter was
2
resent in September 2016, FAR ahead of this complaint, and as it has turned-out MORE than a full
3
60-days, even though it had already been done before, is not expected to do any good, BUT, if and
4
when it does result in some decisive needed governmental actions, then this action will be promptly
5
suspended or stayed while official actions are undertaken and/or pending.
6 A true and correct copy of that Notice is attached hereto in VOLUME III after the photos
7 and TRIAL CHARTS for reference and background information only.
8 36. Pursuant to CWA 505 (b) (1) (A), 33 U.S.C. 1365 (b) (1) (A), and also the
9 CERCLA/EPCRA requirements the above Notice letters were sent more than sixty (60) days prior
10 to commencement of the 2009 lawsuit, and will be handled again as described above for CWA.
37. Also, pursuant to RCRA 7002 (2) (a), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (2) (A), notice of the RCRA
11
violations alleged in this complaint was given more than ninety (90) days prior to commencement
12
of the previous federal lawsuit to the above-named parties, with similar no effect as above, but will
13
be resend again as above and proof thereof appended to the FAC or SAC in THIS 2016 action.
14
15
IV. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
16 38. The basis for assignment of this case to the Northern District of California, pursuant to
17 RCRA 7002 (a) & (b), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (a) & (b), is that the Mathsons residence, operations,
18 dump and hazardous material discharges are all located in this district. Likewise, pursuant to
19 CWA 505 (c) (1) , 33 U.S.C. 1365 (c) (1), venue lies in this District because the dump, drains,
20 operation and control of the site, and the locations of all of the illegal discharges, which are the
21
source of the violations complained of in this complaint, are all located within this District.
A. The contaminated real property is situated at 832 Westgate Drive Eureka, Ca 95503 in the
22
County of Humboldt, which was shown in previous complaints on the attached County Map, Exhibit
23
D, as lots 2 & 3, at circle 24, and TODAY can be located in Photos #1 and #16; and could be
24
generally described as all property between the Cooksey property on the SE, the Ridgewood Drive
25
right-of way to the South, Westgate Drive on the East and the Mathsons property to the Northeast,
26
See Photos #1, #16 & South of #23.
27 39. V. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PARTIES
28 are Bruce Remington, John and Joy Mathson, RAO CO, INC, Olson, Skillings,
Randall, Jeff Nelson, Jon Kishpaugh and The City of Eureka, SEE ALSO RICO PARTIES.
40. Plaintiff, Bruce Remington, the drafter of this complaint, is the adjacent neighbor and
property owner of defendants Mathsons, who are the primary owners, architects and creators of a
large illegal, unzoned residential LANDFILL.
13
1
A. Plaintiff Remington, was a resident of an unincorporated area of Humboldt County, California
2
during all times in which the disputes below arose. Plaintiff, in combination with his wife Suzanne,
3
currently owns, and is vested in fee in, certain real property which is directly adjacent to and shares a
4
common boundary with defendants property. Plaintiffs real property is commonly known as 832
5
Westgate Drive, described and located in detail in the paragraph ABOVE. All deeds have been
6 previously filed by BOTH parties.
7 B. Remingtons land shares a 330 border with Mathson and is located primarily and essentially
8 to the South of the Mathsons land and dump, see photos #1, #16, & #23, etc Volume III. Said dump
9 is centered on Mathsons property and backyard, but extends substantially for about 15,000 square
10 feet onto Remingtons property and substantially onto a steep mountain slope in a dense, old second
growth Redwood forest, per photo #1.
11
C. Remington occupies 832 Westgate Drive presently as large office and storage spaces, while
12
still under construction, See photos #16, #17 and #19-22, and physically resides at the Blackberry
13
address on page one.
14
The approximately one-half acre of his property and soils directly occupied and totally adversely
15
IMPACTED by defendants landfill and hazardous pollutants or secondarily polluted by the
16 Mathsons migrating (mostly in air and waters) toxic substances, lies downhill and sharply below
17 Mathsons fill and dump. SEE e.g. PHOTOS: #6, #7, #13-16, #18 and #s 23-25, then see the other
18 50 or more relevant photographs added three months after most of this was drafted, now a total of 84,
19 out of more than 10,000 that Remington has which are relevant here.
20 D. Plaintiff has approximately four (4) acres of redwood forest (with perhaps 300 large
21
redwoods, as partially viewed in Photos #1, #16 and #19-22, ETC) and large numbers of other
agricultural plantings, including about 15,000 hand-planted trees and bushes now being irrigated
22
almost daily, (e.g. #s 19-22, #52 and #s 61-75). Remington still captures and uses some naturally
23
reclaimed water from multiple springs and small creeks, including Remington Creek, which has
24
now been polluted by the Mathsons, and the other defendants. Therefore, today, most of the water
25
used for plaintiffs irrigation is by necessity now pumped from the pristine waters above Mathsons
26
dumping areas, and by 2016 has had to primarily rely upon expensive County water, costing several
27 thousand dollars per year, due to contamination of the creek.
28 E. Therefore, plaintiff effectively no longer uses or attempts to use the contaminated and polluted
soils (e.g. #6 & #9) and waters (#7 & #8) below Mathsons hazardous wastes dump, as described
above, for agricultural water supply. He also no longer even attempts to plant or grow ANYTHING
on the DUMP SITE (e.g. #6 & #15 & #18, #s 42-43, 3s 49-51, etc) or directly below it or use it as
formerly for recreation, hiking, colorful foliage gardening, landscaping, a background for major
14
1
panoramic photography of his Hydrangea trail, for wild-life habitat, nature walks and/or any
2
fruitful or similar activities.
3
F. Hundreds of animals (from gophers, possums, foxes and raccoons to very large BEAR) live
4
along, below and/or periodically drink from Remington Creek, and areas directly below. Most of the
5
year there is no other reliable water course, no lakes, reservoirs or pools, except for Remingtons
6 artificial pools several hundred yards further South in an entirely different, pristine water shed, that
7 said animals now frequent often.
8 G. Further, Remington Creek, polluted by the Mathsons, et al, (See #7 & #8 portraying
9 dump water before entering the creek) flows rapidly and directly into Elk River, the Elk River
10 Delta, Humboldt Bay, with its extensive endangered wetlands, fisheries and protected wildlife, and
thereafter into the Pacific Ocean. The Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex begins
11
approximately one mile from Mathsons polluted discharges described herein (Photos #7-8) and in
12
that pristine wildlife area alone at least fifteen (15) threatened species of wildlife of every type try to
13
exist, as of 2009.
14
H. Mathsons illegal twin 6 drain pipes, covered thoroughly below, concentrate all the water
15
from an old natural drainage and send them out at very high velocity and volume in any rain over
16 about 1 in two hours. Said trespassing, unpermitted concentrated water damages Remingtons land
17 below by sending rivers of water across a steep muddy slope where major slides now occur at least
18 annually causing thousands of dollars of damages as documented frequently. Extensive systematic
19 perjuries and cover-ups of same by Gans Mathson and Ferriman have made these twin pipes a
20 CENTRAL ETHICAL issue if not a gigantic monetary damages issue. Swamping or drowning a
21
downhill property owner in massive unnatural water and sediment flows is a violation of law in
California and most places in the world, and must be ended and mitigated.
22
I. The relief sought here will specifically redress the above injuries in fact, lessen the likelihood
23
of similar future injuries and hopefully eventually eliminate the interference with the interests of
24
plaintiff, the local community, and all of the citizens of California, the United States and beyond.
25
However, the costs, time and efforts spent on such efforts is great and is becoming barely worth the
26
overall costs, except for posterity and future generations.
27 41. Defendants John and Joy Mathson reside at 778 Westgate Drive, Eureka, CA 95503
28 (Shown in Photos #s1-4, #23 & #16, etc) and own about one acre largely to the north and uphill
from plaintiffs parcels, north of the creek and ravine. Their parcel description, specifications and
survey parameters has been frequently designated in the last 8 years of litigation and is not at issue,
with at least 3 MAJOR surveys being done since 2008, and all are reasonably and sufficiently
consistent with the last PULLEY survey (Photo #16), which is presently recognized.
15
1
A. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that previous central defendants John and Joy
2
Mathson were at all relevant times the apparent owners, possessors and occupants of adjacent real
3
property situated said 778 Westgate Drive, County of Humboldt which property is adjacent to, and their
4
southern property line is coincident with, Plaintiffs northerly property line, and is designated B.C. (and
5
circle 16) on above said previously attached county map, Exhibit D. Their deed description has been
6 previously attached as Exhibit B. Defendants obtained title in 1971 from Eggert. The Pulley survey line
7 and maps used in the 2016 SOL trial (Photo #16, #1) are recognized as adequate to define the relative
8 locations of the properties and the extent of the lateral areas of encroachment onto Remingtons parcel
9 and also the large size of the hazardous fill under ALL of Mathsons backyard and western property.
10 B. Plaintiff is also informed, believes and therefore alleges thereon that John Mathson was the
primary responsible property developer, filling project manager, part-time equipment operator,
11
primary polluter, sole spokesman and agent for all defendants, including RAO, Olson and Skillings.
12
Although a borderline, depressive personality, pathological liar and probable psychopath today, John
13
Mathson in 1998 appears to have been of relatively sound mind and body during the times he
14
made express oral agreements and/or other significant binding representations (in 2003 and 2007)
15
with Plaintiff. John Mathson was therefore acting within the normal scope of his agency, and always
16 with the permission and consent of his codefendant wife and with the full cooperation of his
17 independent contractor RAO and its employees and agents.
18 C. In the 2016 trial it became clear that John Mathson is a skilled pathological LIAR, when
19 Supervised, coached daily and directed closely by Gans, and although every day he told his false
20 testimony about Remingtons phantom NON-VISITS to his land in 1998 differently, the jury was not
21
able to sort-through all the confusion THEN, but eventually Remington will present and explain it
all clearly, diagrammatically and with photos and catch Mathson, Gans, et al in their perjuries,
22
e. g Photo #1, #2-#6, etc. Remingtons Mathson, et al impeachment photos, videos and evidence is
23
not directly relevant or attached here.
24
D. However, the Mathsons used about acre of Remingtons adjacent land for their own
25
personal storage (independent of these contamination charges) from about 1975 to 2006, and then in
26
1998 and beyond they encroached upon and semi-permanently contaminated (until we REMOVE
27 that debris) usurped and encroached upon another 1/3 acre of overlapping and different land to pile
28 foundational stabilizing materials 10-20 deep to support their MAJOR backyard expansion and
leveling project, See Photos #2-5 (side views) and #s 13-15, 23-30, 46, 50, 54, & 56, for related
views and encroaching debris.
E. The Mathsons have owned their property since the 1970s, and were already using portions of
Remingtons land for said above temporary storage of firewood and junk at the time of the primary
16
1
1998 creation of their immense hazardous waste landfill, e.g. Photo #18, a 2003-6 view of stored junk
2
used to conceal the actionable hazardous, infectious materials, plus MANY other photos now.
3
At that time, the Mathsons both personally supervised the dumping of more than TWO
4
THOUSAND TONS of adverse hazardous and contaminated pollutants in their backyard (e. g. #s 2-
5
5, #s 12-15, #18, #9 & #26) and then personally supervised Skillings and RAOs daily smoothing,
6 grading, leveling and pushing many hundreds of TONS of them onto plaintiffs land (above photos
7 lists), from where many kept rolling down the steep mountain into his creek, See Photos #2-5, #14,
8 #31, #55, #s 58-60, ETC.
9 F. On Remingtons land and on their own property they followed standard daily landfill
10 techniques (e.g. Photo #14, #26 and Photos #s 2-5, and many other collages) of concealing all of
the most toxic and offensive pollutants, bacteria and ODORS with a layer of gravel and plenty of
11
topsoil, and then immediately planted weeds like blackberries and virulent grasses like FLAX and
12
Pampas Grass, and watered them, to quickly conceal their environmental crimes. No perfect
13
photographic example is provided here, but #s 13, 15, 18 and 11, etc all show how fast weeds grow
14
in that wet, sunny debris. We have many thousands of projectable photos in these cases for trial use,
15
to illustrate EVERY point 100%.
16 G. On the very steep slopes of plaintiffs property in his redwood forest, which the Mathsons
17 forcibly appropriated from Plaintiff to stabilize their main backyard project, they built a concrete and
18 asphalt debris pyramid-like base, 50 wide and 15-20 deep (thick), with ALL 50 feet across the
19 known property line, see Photos of charts #2, #3 & #13. Next, defendants, and all of them, buried
20 most of their contaminants and massive immovable concrete chunks up to 20,000# each under
21
gravel, miscellaneous debris, many huge redwood stumps and large amounts of: redwood needles,
gigantic redwood branches (up to 1500 pounds EACH) and related logging slash, rotten logs and
22
tree-limbing debris, See Photos #5-6, #s 23-25, #s 12-15 and #s 27-29. Photo # 27 is what the
23
dump looked like in 2005 before burning of the redwood slash to expose the grounds surface for
24
excavations. See other 50 photos added later after the above was written in fall 2016.
25
H. The Mathsons appear to have at least one actively involved heir to their land (a daughter),
26
which land however is now, not only worthless on the RE market, unsalable (in any normal, lawful
27 disclosure, ethical sale), but has a NEGATIVE value as to litigation potential, future contaminations
28 and the specter of a $300,000+ remediation project eventually being FORCED onto subsequent
owners. For example, IF someone were to inherit that land and residence, they might be able to live
in it, but NOT sell it, but eventually they or someone will become liable for REMOVING all that
hazardous debris, and leaking hydrocarbon drums, etc., now believed to be buried in their main
PROTECTED draw, which we intend to EXCAVATE imminently. That cost will be astronomical
17
1
and if the Mathsons were smart they would insist that Allied and all the other insurers to help them
2
with that NOW.
3
42. Defendants RAO CO, Inc, Rich Olson, president, and Kyle Skillings chief equipment
4
operator, mechanic and driver, are primarily responsible for this criminal very PROFITABLE project,
5
as it was THEY who needed a lucrative SHORT-HAUL innocuous, out-of-the way, un-scrutinized
6 residential dumping and disposal site to dump their hazardous debris.
7 A. RAO Construction still has an inconspicuous, backstreet (North Ridge Drive) business
8 presence and some offices and storage space, called 5503 Walnut Drive, Cutten, Eureka, CA 95503 in
9 amongst MANY associated residential properties, apparently financed FROM this and related illegal
10 enterprises, whose width is not presently known. Larry Kluck is presently representing RAO, Rich
Olson and presumably Skillings also as a still-active, long-time corporate employee. Other unknown
11
RAO employees were presumably also involved in this 1998 illicit project and since.
12
B. This huge Mathson-RAO built DUMP was conceived entirely FOR PROFIT; see Photos #26,
13
#14 and #5, etc. Logic and all present evidence proves that. Whether the Mathsons SHARED in the
14
cash profits is presently unknown, however it seems UNLIKELY, because they already were overtly
15
emotionally thrilled and satisfied by a $150,000 lawn expansion and may not have initially been
16 cognizable about the costs, profits, financially driven character of any very EXPENSIVE to sustain,
17 major heavy equipment project and possibly the enormous FELONY ILLEGALITY of their entire
18 illicit project may have been concealed from some of the co-conspirators, see e.g. Photo #30.
19 C. The Mathsons and all OTHER defendants here know NOW (of these FELONIES) however, and
20 are all suddenly caught-up in a massive criminal cover-up here, like a small tornado, with perjuries and
21
numerous continuous crimes involved already here for YEARS, against Remington, trying to scare him
away, as the VICTIM and now an inadvertent whistle-blower to a mafia-like scheme, in effect.
22
D. This illegal residential landfill in a pristine redwood forest WAS a SHORT-HAUL2
23
FRAUDULENT CRIMINAL SCHEME planned by RAO and Mathson, and Remington has just
24
2. A Short-haul fraudulent scheme in this context refers to the improper disposal of local Hazardous wastes
25 such as saturated hydrocarbons in 55-gallon drums from the 5-6 major gas station remediation projects which
occurred in the same year that defendants established this unlawful residential class one landfill; friable
26 asbestos and lead residues, etc. Simply put, the owner of a hazardous waste contracts with a trucking
company to haul said ways to a proper disposal facility which in this case are 12-20 hours away in Anderson
27
California or Nevada where expensive dumping fees and other permits would need to be factored-in also in
28 the cost. At $100 per hour for some sort of a dump truck, the cost to properly dispose of only 10 yards of
hazardous wastes could easily be $3-6000. If a trucker is paid say $3500 per load everyone is happy in the
trucker could probably make a profit of $3-400 for 1 to 2 days work. On the other hand, if RAO had a short-
haul illegal dump only 10 minutes away at Mathsons and Remingtons property they could make that round-
trip run for $50 and whole eight loads in a day grossing $28,000 with expenses of no more than $400
including diesel, drivers wages and all maintenance and overhead. CRIME PAYS. In this example, Olson
and RAO good make under the table on taxable profits of $27,000 per day, and the evidence proves that they
obviously did so for 3-5 consecutive months.
18
1
become inadvertently and innocently enmeshed in it like being caught on the edge of a battle field,
2
caught in a massive rip tide or swamped by an illegal title wave of organized crime, where Remington
3
is merely the innocent victim of Olson and Mathsons grand criminal scheme, now protected by Gans,
4
Kluck and Plotz and their cover-up. However, the Mathsons, et al are now deeply BURIED in this
5
entire criminal enterprise now, especially the criminal covering-up FELONIES, so far with perjury,
6 felony vandalisms, intimidation of witnesses and implied threats against Remington, and who
7
8 knows what arson or murders may still occur here.

9 E. The Mathson are clearly not smart enough (but Gans and OLSON are) to put that project
10 together financially, strategically or logistically, and to keep the present COVER-UP viable and legally
on-track with their many unethical witnesses. Gans was not around here in 1998, but clearly leads the
11
cover-up today. It inferentially took a crooked businessman ALREADY in the hauling, contracting and
12
trucking business who already owned equipment, had employees and NEEDED PROFITS and CASH
13
FLOW to keep it all going in bad economic times for the concrete foundation, sidewalk and drive way
14
and highway industry.
15
F. This was a somewhat sophisticated organized criminal enterprise and it took some ingenuity
16 and ongoing work and contracts to figure-out all this and HOW TO MAKE SMALL UNCERTAIN
17 PROFITS (as usually occurs in Humboldt County trucking, log or lumber hauling) into guaranteed BIG
18 profits, where RAO could then buy land, build his multiple homes all up and down Walnut Drive and
19 Cutten and make it rather big-time for a couple years.
20 G. Upon analysis, Rich Olson owned the business, had all the risks and all the costs and HE HAD
21
TO BE the ultimate mastermind in a quite brilliant, (at least in this small town, unsophisticated
area) VERY illegal, highly profitable, establishment of a Class I dump in this pristine, residential
22
community, right in the middle of a large, beautiful redwood forest with spectacular ocean views,
23
from each parcel, see H & S C 25146-25149.7,about relevant California hazardous waste laws and
24
for perspective on the illegality of this residential hazardous waste dump.
25
H. THEREFORE, it is now obvious RAO played a major part in this hazardous contamination, all
26
along, and carefully planned this criminal enterprise with the aid of the Mathsons, and it was ALL
27 clearly performed for illicit profits only. Gans, Plotz and Kluck hold it together now, and the role of
28 the other defendants named here in the ENTIRE scheme will become clearer after their depositions,
but the considerable information already known is in the RICO statement.
I. Olson figured all this out prior to 1998, as many plans worked together in sequence here, and
he has gotten away with it beautifully for almost 20 years, and but for the pesky Remington here, he

19
1
and Skillings may STILL skate free here, indefinitely, unless the criminal authorities take an interest
2
in this case imminently.
3
J. Hence, Remingtons health and very LIFE is now unfortunately somewhat in jeopardy
4
here, and soon, by March 2017, is likely to be very much at risk. The criminal authorities have been
5
apprised of that fact, have THESE documents, and hopefully our present and on-going expansive
6 video surveillance and related evidence will implicate Skillings (most likely, but 3-4 others are also
7 present physical, violent THREATS), if foul play ends Remingtons attempts to gain some semblance
8 of JUSTICE here. Maybe this sounds dramatic, somewhat over-done, self-serving and/or
9 theatrical maybe, WE HOPE so, but then YOU didnt see Skillings intimidating, slow, deliberate,
10 intentionally menacing, exaggerated STARES at Remington as he left the courtroom in August

2016, either. Reminiscent of a cobra or Tiger preparing to strike. Nor, will you, All of the likely
11
readers of this document, be especially concerned or sad if Remington does disappear some night.
12
So,we watch our back in the dark, for the next few years.
13
43. RAOs employees, especially SKILLINGS, operated miscellaneous rubber tired loaders,
14
backhoes, compacters, tractors and 10-yard dump and semi-dump trucks on defendants property or
15
sending toxic fill materials from various unknown highway projects to Ms illegal highly profitable
16 Class I landfill, see Photo charts # 2-5, #13-15, #24-26 & #30, etc. RAO brought in many
17 hundreds of dump truck loads of contaminated and hazardous debris and also some other rock,
18 concrete, and gravel fill materials for defendant and/or his agents, and possible additionally
19 discovered DOE defendants, to push, spread, compact, SORT and HIDE, with their huge loader,
20 trucks and other equipment. Defendants buried, concealed and camouflaged the asbestos and the
21
largest, most toxic and onerous hazardous materials on Remingtons land, (e.g. PHOTOS #s 9-11
and #31, and many others) where they continue to exist and migrate lower causing Remington
22
grave physical injuries and also directly threatening the health of children and walkers on Westgate
23
immediately adjacent and UPWIND.
24
44. BOTH Mathsons, RAO, Inc. and OLSON (RAO), Skillings, Kishpaugh and unknown
25
other DOE Defendants, were all clearly involved almost daily, from 1998 to 2016 in EVERY
26
criminal decision and all continuous illegal actions. Those acts included dumping large amounts
27 of restricted, controlled, illegally deposited materials, grading and pushing them out into lower
28 areas, sorting and placing all large objects off to the edges, and in many instances pushing them off
the hillside to the South which became Rs land almost immediately, as it adjoins Ms, on a steep
mountainside. Defendants also engaged in deliberate criminal and civil conspiracies to
thereafter bury and conceal the most conspicuously illegal materials, such as friable asbestos,
asbestos pipes and underground gas station accessories and excavated soils, under other more
20
1
benign materials, including asphalt, concrete, gravel, and redwood limbs. Defendants fraudulent
2
conspiracy, and numerous VERY unlawful dumping, storage, Class I landfill creation activities,
3
ALL done without any permit, engineering, slope protections or Building Department Supervision
4
(Title III violations, ID, at A-167, as per Remingtons several 2014-15 Summary Judgment
5
Separate Statements, describing the above in great detail), remained secret for many years.
6 Defendants gravely feared possible excavations by Remington in 2012. Thus, when severely
7 threatened with exposure by Remington and Figas excavations with his mammoth excavator,
8 Defendants began a very serious and systematic series of severe Intimidations against Remington
9 and Figas to make Discovery of their FULL crimes more difficult. Ds succeeded now for 18+
10 years; however, John Mathsons continuous series of felony vandalisms, RETALIATORY

intimidations, and related harassments have FAILED to deter Remington from pursuing JUSTICE
11
here, have highlighted their guilt, depth of their fear and severity of their crimes, has embittered
12
Remington and made him more resolute to fight for justice until his death and beyond.
13
45. The City of Eureka, City Attorney, Cyndey Day-Wilson, now overseeing and responsible
14
for the Public Works Departments illicit agreements with RAO, in 1998, believed to have been
15
MADE BY BOYD DAVIS BETWEEN 1996-2000, according to Remingtons 2016 brief
16 investigations.
17 A. In or prior to 1998, the City of Eureka is known to have excavated, removed and replaced
18 ASBESTOS reinforced concrete pipes in the vicinity of Herrick Ave by the golf course. ALL of
19 those pipes are now illegally buried here on Remingtons land, where they are gradually surfacing and
20 expelling friable fibers to the air and community. For 8 years in these lawsuits John Mathson testified
21
that RAO illicitly (and very illegally) hauled-in 20% ASBESTOS water pipe and 60% asbestos
Chrysotile pipe and insulation from that project, dumped it, sorted it and carefully placed and then
22
BURIED it HERE, where it still is, all 100% of it.
23
B. It was just revealed to Remington by one of his witnesses, a few months ago, that said above
24
asbestos removal hauling operation was a CITY project, and was not owned, operated or removed by
25
anyone else, such as the Humboldt Community Services. 1% asbestos materials are hazardous
26
controlled substances in California and must be disposed of properly. 20% asbestos pipe is VERY
27 HAZARDOUS and dangerous material, and the 60% asbestos Chrysotile is ULTRA-HAZARDOUS
28 lethal type material when inhaled.
C. Disposing of all that asbestos on Remingtons property above in a residential redwood forest
at 832 Westgate Drive was IMPROPER, illegal and IS actionable, as herein.
D. Our 2011 expert statistical analysis proved that at least 15,000 pounds of said pipes are here on
Remingtons land alone, plus an unknown quantity of Chrysotile, and how much more asbestos was
21
1
trucked away by RAO. Dumped at Mathsons criminal residential Class I landfill and then placed
2
on Remingtons land is unknown. Discovery in these cases will be interesting, and in any event the
3
City is now responsible for some part of Remingtons serious damages, removal and proper
4
disposal costs at a licensed facility, and now should work with Kluck (RAO) and the Mitchell firm,
5
Gans (for Mathson) to help resolve this jointly, reasonably and fairly, before lengthy trials in San
6 Francisco begin.
7 D. Mr. Brisso has been working for Mathson since at least 2008 and to the extent he was the
8 City attorney since 1998, is a serious issue, in combination with many related allegations over the
9 years in this case involving LAFCo, Melissa Martel and others at the County Health Department.
10 Rather obviously, Remington already has knowledgeable witnesses in this esoteric and secretive area.
Removal costs under the 2011 Aveggio SHN Remedial Action Plan (RAP) are $160,000, about
11
80% probably attributable to the asbestos only, as it is intermixed with at least 2 million pounds of
12
related hazardous debris on Remingtons land ALONE, and located inconveniently on a steep,
13
dangerous mountain side where an excavator collapsing into the ravine could be FATAL.
14
46. Defendant Morgan Randall. Randall lived in a rented little house across the street from
15
832 Westgate, in approximately the late 1980s to mid 1990s and Remington did not know him or
16 ever interact with him at all. He is believed to have then worked at Piersons Building Supply where
17 he apparently still does, in some managerial function.
18 A. At some unknown time while Remington was 110% occupied managing remote burl
19 logging at the Pelican Bay prison clearing and Redwood National Park Bypass projects, locating,
20 gathering, loading, hauling, milling finishing and selling millions of pounds of good redwood burl
21
plus personally managing, supplying and operating 6 stores and two saw mills, Randall approached
Remington briefly at some unknown time about HIM topping some of Remingtons Alder trees
22
which he said were blocking his ocean view. However, after cutting many trees down, it was
23
discovered that actually it was Remingtons 50 tall residential structure and numerous tall
24
redwoods which really blocked 90% of said view, irrespective of any Alders. See the RICO
25
statement for much more detail about all this, but note that John Mathson, possibly with help from
26
someone else, who might have been concerned, did try to remove Remingtons entire 50-foot tall
27 residential structure by arson, which if successful would have fully-opened up Randalls ocean-
28 view.
47. Remington declined Randalls request and said he wanted all his trees intact and
natural as they were now. Randall persisted a few times per year, for about 2-3 years in that
obnoxious request, and at some point to shut him up Remington said he could top 3 or 4 Alder off
a high ladder, but to leave the roots and trunk in tact to stabilize the steep unstable bank there, and
22
1
to also leave the wood, as Remington needed and used all the firewood he readily had at hand.
2
Security of Remingtons burl and other valuable stored building materials, like $20,000 of ashlar
3
sandstone, was another issue and Remington gave Randall various other instructions related to that,
4
including keeping his gate locked and not driving down the mountain to cause erosion from his the
5
truck ruts, etc.
6 48. Simply put, Randall violated all instructions, cut-down about a dozen Alders at ground
7 level over a period of months while Remington was not paying any attention at all and generally
8 abused his permissions, stole the wood, vandalized valuable timber which had a significant function
9 and value, and weakened the steep slope involved and began erosion processes. He also appears to
10 have dumped some personal trash and debris, and concealed it in a hole with some Alder branches.
A. As a result of Randalls illicit, unauthorized, trespasses and vandalism, a major landslide
11
and huge garden damages were incurred by Remington in 2013, occurring exactly where Randall
12
illicitly and without permission removed more than that dozen Alders, which were supposedly
13
blocking his ocean view, from his rented home across the street. Remington understood and
14
assumed that he OWNED the place and was permanently located there as a neighbor, which was
15
why he acquiesced slightly initially. However a year or two later Randall disappeared and a
16 succession of other vagabond and drifter renters lived there for about a year each.
17 B. Nothing ever grew back there where the Alders had grown, and over time the bank eroded
18 and became entirely destabilized for more than 100 lineal feet and dropped about 7 vertical feet
19 according to proofs. As above, Randall also stole the firewood (which Remington wanted) and
20 deposited personal debris in the area, which is just now becoming discovered as a result of the slide.
21
C. As a result of that personal jealousy, ingratitude and obvious related enmity which
apparently developed and festered over the years, apparently Randall has been easily and
22
enthusiastically recruited by Gans and Mathson, as part of their perjurious criminal conspiracy to
23
make Remington KEEP his contaminated debris, shut-up about it, SUFFER and repent, and/or
24
preferably just die, mysteriously just disappear, and/or if all of their violent plans and acts fail,
25
then just in any event, REMOVE ALL of DEFENDANTS THE CONTAMINATION AT HIS
26
OWN EXPENSE of more than $200,000.
27 49. Damages caused by Randalls illicit trespassing and vandalistic acts against Remingtons
28 land, timber and his dumping of unknown types of trash in an underground crevice have just
become apparent in this latest 3-year period; hence, he is named as a related conspiratorial
defendant, possibly involved deeper in his conspiracy with Gans and Mathson, and with a possible
unknown financial interest in the MAIN contamination complained of North of Remington
Creek, than was initially known.
23
1
50. Jeff Nelson, CEO of SHN engineering and consulting services who was the supervisor
2
of Remingtons two local environmental experts, the preeminent John Aveggio who surprisingly
3
and prematurely died of mysterious causes in January 2012, and his deputy engineer, friend and
4
able protegee Mike Foget, who was also a highly experienced environmental engineer and who
5
worked for Remington for about two years, learning to become an apprentice courtroom
6 environmental engineering advocate expert. [See RICO Statement (RS), Volume II pages 187-
7 205, and elsewhere for a full discussion about Nelson and his significance in these cases. The
8 following two paragraphs are short excerpts from the above 18 pages]
9 51. On August 25, 2014, Remington was ready to resume trial preparations for an
10 imminent crucial life or death important jury trial, which could have been abruptly scheduled
as early as September-October 2014 and he called Mr. Foget to inform him of that fact and to
11
meet further. Remington was then very shocked to learn that Nelson had pulled-the-plug 100%
12
on Foget, removed him entirely from Remingtons case, and unilaterally decided that he could
13
not be Remingtons expert NOW after all, or EVER.
14
52. Nelson deceitfully claimed that SHN was going to unilaterally and without discussion, or
15
alternative presented, just (purportedly) abruptly stop doing any litigation support entirely, because
16 Nelson unconvincingly claimed that he just doesnt like litigation support. That arrogant, self-
17 serving and prima donna-like statement, which is not likely to be Nelsons true policy or motive, didnt
18 make sense then or now, and infers even further the strong pressure which Gans applied to him
19 through corrupt means. Why SHN would abruptly violate an obvious and bona fide contract and then
20 walk-away from a very easy $20,000 or more for some less then fully deployed employee, who merely
21
had to sit on his butt, and answer a few rather easy questions which had already been thought through
and answered by Aveggio years before, has not yet been adequately answered.
22
53. Nelsons cited actions, and collusive conspiracies, described at RS: 155-170 with
23
specificity have violated many state and federal laws. Additionally, what Nelson did and his
24
inadequate explanation therefore has always seemed to Remington to be illogical and absurd, which
25
merely infers that Remington does not have all of the important information. Why did Nelson walk
26
away from another $20-30,000 of Remingtons litigation support money, which was always timely
27 paid, when is employee Foget was being taught an invaluable skill by Remington and when Foget
28 desperately wanted to learn that skill and finish the work that his best friend Mr. Aveggio had started?
A. To answer that question, with respect to a mercenary and unfeeling, rigid bureaucrat like
Nelson, we must first assume that Nelson was offered more than $30,000 by the enterprise to
violate a clear written contract, which was readily enforceable, and will be, either here or in state
court.
24
1
54. To yield to Gans pressure, intimidation and/or threats, and the other influences fully detailed
2
at RS: 155-170 and elsewhere, and to flagrantly and deliberately violate several obvious RICO
3
predicate acts, without any regrets or apologies was very surprising and also illuminating. Nelson
4
violated criminal laws here that have penalties of substantial fines and/or imprisonment, or both;
5
plus he obviously violated a simple and very clear contract and course of behavior; plus he committed
6 tortious interference with contract, CACI 2201, and committed the related fraud, collusion,
7 conspiracy and related pendant claim allegations in Volume I.
8 55. Simply put, In addition to the other cited 14 pages of allegations and details, Nelson violated
9 the following federal RICO predicate act laws, by blatantly inserting himself into Gans enterprise,
10 including, without limitation and at a minimum, as based on our limited information before discovery
has even begun in this case:
11
A.18 USC 1951, Hobbs Act. EXTORTION, deliberately and believably causing FEAR in
12
Remington, plus directly caused or contributed to virtually all of the numerous types of
13
psychological, emotional, LEL, special, punitive damages and all of the related costs itemized in
14
the Harm and Relief Requested sections;
15
B. 18 USC 201. BRIBERY, several inferential occurrences of that are alleged, related to
16
Nelson and perpetuated by Gans, Plotz, Ferriman, Brisso and/or other enterprise members or
17 gophers;
18 C. 18 USC 1341. Mail Fraud, overlaps with violations of California B & PC 17, 200, et
19 seq, with respect to all mailings between Remington and SHN since 2010,wherein Aveggio falsely
20 represented that he would support Remington to, through and beyond trial and not just give
21 the money to Nelson and run;
22 D. 18 USC 1343. Wire Fraud, including internet, email and phone, between Nelson and
23
Gans Enterprise members, and between Remington and all members of SHN for at least six
(6) years;
24
E. 18 USC 1503. Obstruction of Justice. Gans and Nelson, in combination obviously have
25
no honest scruples, good faith or proper business ethics;
26
F. 18 USC 1511. Obstruction of law enforcement; here, Nelson is now a gambling
27
establishment as he rolls the dice against treble damages;
28
G. 18 USC 1512. WITNESS TAMPERING. Under the enterprises influence, Nelsons
tampering with Remingtons fairly contracted for litigation support witness, Foget, was prejudicial
and damaging;

25
1
H. 18 USC 1513. Retaliation Against Witnesses. As related to Nelson, this law is
2
applicable in various self-evident ways to be augmented in discovery, with respect to Foget,
3
Aveggios soil testing technician, whose name is in the files, Blue Rocks testing technician,
4
LACOs technicians, and Hoyos and HER testing technician, among other inter-related friends and
5
witnesses.
6
56. The exact conversations, dates, employees and means of communication between Gans
7 extortion racketeering enterprise, Nelson and SHN are yet to be fully discovered, however it is clear
8 that Gans/Ferriman and their associates named above did reach Nelson and totally intimidated and
9 deleteriously influenced him to prejudice Remington and all but destroy his contamination case, for
10 about one year. The damages to Remington from those corrupt, extortive and obstruction of justice
11
efforts described above are still being felt and have not been fully mitigated, resolved yet, or assigned
any estimated monetary damage value, except as explained in the RICO statement.
12
57. Jon Kishpaugh is an original charter member of a Mathson-RAO dumping conspiracy,
13
drinking and drug-using Westgate gang that often terrorizes Remingtons property, and has been
14
involved in all of Remingtons complaints herein from the very beginning, in the 1990s. Apparently
15
he was there in 1998, cheerleading defendants hazardous waste dumping, which must have
16
justified his own observed and inferred very substantial dumping in the upstream area of
17 Remington Creek from where defendants were dumping. Mickee Kishpaughs role needs to be
18 further discovered, but see RICO Statement, pages 222-223, etc.
19 58. The Mathsons have alleged that he was a long-time dumper in his own right into the upper
20 canyon of "Remington Creek", and is known to have broken through many Remington fences in
21 various years, to keep dumping there, since about 1992. In May 2006, when he could no longer
break down the 10-foot high wire fencing, even Joy Mathson reported him to Remington as the
22
dumper of a massive amount of Escallonia and related automotive debris and garbage onto
23
Remington's land. Jon Kishpaugh just never got the message that Remington's land was not
24
a garbage dump for his own personal use, and even after he was specifically told that by Remington
25
to his face, he ignored it, broke-down and CUT Remingtons fences, ignored his signs and did
26
extensive criminal dumping, for several years thereafter, rather than just get, and pay for, a
27 conventional garbage can for his debris, like everyone else in the area.
28 59. After Remington had fully closed in his yard with impenetrable fences, for deer, bear and
scofflaws and criminal dumpers like Kishpaugh (meaning JON), still kept dumping along the outside
of Remington's hedge in the Westgate right-of-way across from his residence. That right-of-way was
maintained by Remington and Kishpaughs dumping was very offensive to the entire neighborhood

26
1
and continued until about 2012, however it does not arise to being a federal predicate act,\at this time
2
and is just mentioned here as background.
3
60. Kishpaugh is a relatively minor figure in this case at the moment, but if he repeats his state
4
perjury in federal discovery that will change fast and make him a prime and easy RICO target, under
5
the fine and imprisonment penalty statutes.
6 61. In the interests of some semblance of brevity, Remington refers any interested readers
7 to his RICO statement at pages 221-226, Volume IV, for more specificity with respect to the
8 allegations against both Kishpaughs, which are expected to be quickly and exponentially
9 multiplied during well-targeted federal discovery of all types, since they are among the top-10
10 most likely witnesses to decide that lying for good ol Gans, and good old buddy, but
increasingly mean, ruthless, unfeeling and sullen John Mathson at the risk of going to prison, for a
11
year or two probably doesnt make a lot of sense, no matter how good the pay is from Gans and
12
Lawrence.
13
Additionally, Jon Kishpaugh likes to talk excessively, with his constant disingenuous
14
embellishments and little nervous laughs. Because he has little if any self-control, and when
15
deposed he would be expected inevitably to quickly begin lying about unimportant matters and bury
16 himself completely in short order, since we can prove most of these allegations in various ways.
17 His wife, as discussed briefly in the RICO statement is also a very strange, swarthy character in her
18 own right and will undoubtably have trouble at her deposition, corroborating her husbands careless
19 lies about historical matters of record, known to all of the local neighbors. As fully explained in the
20 RICO statement and documents, lying in Judge Reinholtsen state court is not as serious as federal
21
perjury which could and WOULD be expected in short order, from both Kishpaughs.
62. Still unknown, suspected, and as yet undiscovered, subordinate, DOE Defendants, 1-
22
10, inclusive, in BOTH Federal and State contamination cases and also independently in the
23
RICO racketeering enterprise.
24
A. Those DOE defendants are believed to include respectively, and without limitations:
25
Unknown individual persons, several other Westgate residents, numerous RAO workers, drivers,
26
subcontractor, concrete finishers, labor helpers, confidants of the above, partnerships, dumping and
27 equipment hauling trucking companies, miscellaneous consultants in all relevant areas of
28 defendants extensive house-building and other profitable activity, contractors, corporations
and/or entities, who are, or were, responsible for, or INVOLVED in the original 1990-2002 criminal
dumping activities on multiple properties, as well as the criminal RICO cover-up, intended to
oust and/or destroy Remington, since at least 2012.

27
1
63. Said unknown anticipated additional DOE defendants in both portions of this federal case
2
(as separated between Volumes I & II), under Gans Enterprises influence will be required to
3
PERJURE themselves, or further perjure themselves, in defense of themselves, their fellow RICO
4
enterprise members or environmental co-conspirators, or their fellow cross-conspirators who
5
preceded the RICO enterprise in association with RAO construction, or who in some way
6 contributed to the violations which are the subject of this complaint, and its massive present, no-
7 expense barred COVERUPS, specifically particularized in the RICO statement.
8 64. Other suspected and/or required DOEs, whose identities are just not yet known, are, or
9 were, responsible for the hauling, dumping, loaning and renting of the heavy machinery used by
10 RAO and subsequently by John Mathson and Skillings until approximately 2006, its servicing, the
management of the dumping and grading operations, or whoever provided the insurance coverage of
11
Mathsons, RAOs and defendants operations, resultant liabilities and those of their subcontractors.
12
65. Additionally, defendants elaborate cover-ups of their crimes and rapidly developing RICO
13
enterprise as said cover-ups structure and management/planning/operational structure involves many
14
employees, accountants, administrators and responsible decision-making secretaries (such as Gans
15
secretary Julie Gilbride, for example, Klucks staff and of course the highly implicated Ryan Plotz),
16 not yet named but whom MAY WELL BE after depositions and extensive discovery regarding RICO.
17 66. Although most of the names, identities, capacities, statute of limitations exceptions and/or
18 liabilities and functions of DOES 1-10, inclusive, are presently unknown or inaccessible to plaintiff, at
19 the appropriate time plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to insert the true names
20 of said DOES when same have been both fully ascertained and also determined to be liable.
21
67.These presently unknown DOES, in combination and cooperation with Mathson, RAO,
Kishpaugh, ET AL, and with the permission, knowledge, assistance OF (and unjust PROFITS
22
inferentially to) ALL named Defendants, collectively brought in an estimated 300 (or MORE) FULL
23
10-28 yard dump truck loads (over 3000, and up to 4000+ cubic yards) of polluted, contaminated
24
junk, many tons of asbestos and building material debris, toxic asphalt dusts, silica & asphalt surface
25
grindings, lead and other poisonous metals.
26
68. For example, on information and belief, Joe Costa Trucking of Arcata, CA participated
27 heavily in this dumping and pollution project, however Costa has long been DEAD and Plaintiff
28 has decided not to pursue ghosts in the offices of innocent successors to or purchasers of his
equipment and customers3. OTHER truckers or associates and confidants may develop however,
3. Nevertheless, RAOs attorney Mr. Kluck insists on muddying the waters and confusing all courts by
insisting on adding Joe Costa as a defendant in this case, which is inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to
deceive the court and to prejudice Remington thereby. Remington is not the stupid one, nor is Kluck in all
probability. He is shifty, crafty and tricky and here perpetuating an error deliberately and intentionally in an
28
1
ranging from Beacom, Flying J Gas, Hubbard and other oil companies or maintenance companies
2
for same, so the DOE category is kept open and every few years NEW defendants are added, 4 are
3
new here, since 2009.
4
69. RAO may have operated alone as they are known to have owned their OWN trucks,
5
tractors, trailers and to have rented NICHOLS 28 cylindrical semi-end-dump trailers to be hauled
6 and used by THEIR drivers. Whether the City hauled contaminated asbestos and related hazardous
7 material to Mathsons dump is still presently unknown and discovery will be VERY detailed and
8 illuminating.
9 A. Many other presently unidentified hauling contractors, retailers (like RANDALL) and/or
10 TRUCK DRIVERS may have criminally assisted RAO in dumping (also, perhaps knowingly
violating laws and the rights of Remington and the community) the contaminated materials NOW
11
still visibly present on Remingtons land including: the very LARGE quantities of hazardous
12
asbestos materials, 100+ yards of saturated hydrocarbon soils, gas station tank, hydraulic lift,
13
piping and related pumping apparatus, MANY tons of asphalt, roofing and related building
14
remnants, giant concrete and iron blocks, and other known, still unknown, and frequently newly
15
discovered adverse substances onto Defendants and Remingtons properties.
16 70. When, or if, the identity of the other parties guilty of illegally hauling, dumping, disposal
17 and/or the identification of other specific hazardous and/or toxic poisons and their likely or
18 discovered sources have been identified in Mathsons landfill (now occupying BOTH properties),
19 Plaintiff will amend his complaint or perhaps merely patiently wait until 2017 to add them to his
20 second successive action complaint, or do so after the STAY here is lifted following the 2016
21
trial and appeals.
71. Relationships. Plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that at all times mentioned in this
22
complaint the RAO defendants, Olson and Skillings, etc were the agents and/or employers of their
23
codefendants (BOTH Mathsons), and John Mathson was the main on-site BOSS and was acting
24
within the course and scope of such agency and employment and spoke for all 778 Westgate
25
property land owners, agents and interests, whoever they may be, if any additional owners are
26
eventually discovered. See Remingtons SJIs 3700 series. Olson was the central criminal
27 defendant who masterminded this entire felonious scheme, knowing the Mathsons were also
28 borderline psychopaths concerned only with upward mobility, superficially competing with their
better educated and more affluent neighbors and gaining an illicit profit, by doing absolutely
attempt to discredit Remingtons state case DR140426. Although not yet proven corrupt, Klucks maintaining
constant contact with Gans and his racketeering leadership, and getting all his information, documents and
case objectives there from a proven RICO enterprise, forebodes quite poorly for Klucks future integrity.
29
1
NOTHING, if possible.
2
72. Kishpaugh and Randall, and some of the others allegedly involved, who are all
3
identified in the RICO statement, in the various crimes and conspiracies also had detailed
4
knowledge of these defendants environmental and subsequent criminal conspiratorial covering-up
5
crimes going WAY back to at least 1997.
6 73. But those named in 2016-17, and going forward, are now heavily involved in this on-
7 going CRIMINAL RICO racketeering cover-up, and simultaneous common-law, fraudulent
8 conspiracy as alleged below, of the largest residential hazardous waste dump in Northern California
9 history. That contaminated, residential class one landfill established in the middle of a native
10 redwood forest, quickly became so large, profitable and thereafter unmanageable that these
greedy, criminal defendants had to bury wastes on Remingtons steep adjacent land as a foundation
11
to extend their dump out another 75-100 feet on their mountaintop, where the main dump was and
12
STILL IS located. Clearly, the fact that RAO, Mathson and the original contamination defendants
13
were unjustly and illegally making $2000-5000 for every additional load they could cram into that
14
redwood forest site, made it hard for them to stop, not unlike counterfeiting perfect money with a
15
plate which made $20 bills indistinguishable from the real thing. Kishpaugh also saved himself
16 many thousands of dollars, at Remingtons and the environments expense, with his dumping,
17 however it was on a drastically smaller scale as compared to RAO and Mathsons industrial-
18 scaled hazardous waste dump with a very profitable business plan which involved numerous
19 other contractors, truckers and haulers that did not want to drive all the way over towards Anderson,
20 CA and Nevada if they could avoid it.
21
74. Said defendants hazardous waste dump has also almost KILLED Remington, as in DEAD,
with its infectious bacteria and immune-system attacking poisons, see PHOTO #32, and the actual
22
deleterious health effects on or TO OTHER neighbors immediately UPWIND and down stream will be
23
systematically investigated and determined before any federal trial in these cases, as time permits.
24
75. Pushing poisons onto the hated Remingtons property where he might never discover
25
the crime made all this especially exciting, FUN and appealing to the Mathsons, who
26
acknowledged their envy, jealousy and resulting hatred for the Remingtons and their too big
27 house, portrayed nicely in Photo #52. Nevertheless, the Mathsons concealed and disguised that
28 hatred and instead feigned a close neighborly friendship with Remington for an apparently
harmonious 30 years before snapping under the pressure of CLOSELY watching Remingtons
slow excavations, investigations and inevitable contamination discoveries, as he came-up the
hill excavating a complex series of paths across the dump in January, 2006, with his individually
set redwood rounds and many planting holes on that steep 40-60 slope, shown in many photos.
30
1
2 VI. SUMMARY OF CAUSES OF ACTION HEREIN, AUTHORITY AND

REQUESTED RELIEF.
3
76. Remington requests a Declaratory Judgment in DR080678, clearly interpreting the
4
previous Magistrates (Vadas) Summary Judgment in the prior 2009-2014 Federal case CV 09-4547
5
NJV. That Rule 37 (b) Summary Judgment was made without any factual findings, but merely
6
determined the obvious, that without any experts and thus ZERO admissible evidence, Remington
7 could not meet any of the elements of any federal cause of action. DISMISSING all Federal claims,
8 because of no triable facts was NOT the same as fully adjudicating all of Remingtons evidence and
9 finding it deficient.
10 77. Rather, defendants self-servidly decided to interpret that dismissal merely caused by a
11 good faith pro se expert disclosure error, as a final determination on the merits in federal and state
court and that Remington therefore had no facts of any kind to support any of his California
12
statutorily allowed successive action contamination actions for damages in the three previous
13
years. All of those cases were and still are backed-up factually and visually by about two million
14
pounds of hazardous and contaminated wastes, as itemized elsewhere, piled-up here on his land,
15
even today, 6-20 deep.
16
78. After thrice ruling over at least 5 years that NO res judicata or collateral estoppel (CE)
17 existed here State Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen abruptly yielded to unknown pressures
18 and abruptly reversed himself, based on defendants apparently entirely frivolous logic, arguments,
19 authority and federal summary judgment law4. In his July 2016 MIL #20 ruling he amazingly
20 managed to eliminate EVERY possible contamination issue raised in Remingtons above cases by
21 the apparent misapplication of Collateral Estoppel.
22
79. Remington repeatedly alleged there, from May through August, and now here in September
2016 that NO ISSUES were identical between the State causes and Federal statutory causes, NOR
23
24 4. See RICO statement, currently at pages 207-224 for specific details about Judge Reinholtsens
ambiguous involvement here as perceived from Remingtons candid, but arguably biased viewpoint, after
25 failed CCP 170.1 and 170.6 disqualification attempts. Judge Reinholtsen is apparently still going to attempt
to adjudicate DR 080678 beginning about February 17, however his staff never sent the promised hearing
26 transcript from November 15, 2016 as apparently ordered and promised which probably explained all of that,
so today Remington has really no idea who is going to attempt to do what in that case. Recall Remingtons
27
wild and difficult to substantiate accusations about an enterprise file room and/or Superior Courthouse
28 saboteur intercepting many documents either from or to Remington at critical and prejudicial junctures? At
said above pages 207-224, Remington attempted to make somewhat indiscreet inferences about what has
occurred here and what could have caused some of said courts abrupt reversals, dozens of consecutive
negative and prejudicial rulings against Remington, around the time of and after Judge Reinholtsens known
coming to Jesus moment, and simultaneous moment of wonderful rapport with Gans, which almost
brought tears to our eyes, during a hearing which surprisingly and inconsistently happened at a mid-June 2016
hearing on an exactly known date and exact time, around 10:15 AM before a break, which additional details
could be determined at a later date, when Remingtons 2016 pretrial documents are gathered and organized.
31
1
did Magistrate Vadas ever find that in his rambling, lengthy opinion plainly MARKED FOR THIS
2
MOTION ONLY ON EVERY PAGE. The Federal causes were all dismissed easily due to lack
3
of any expert evidence supporting ANY Federal cause of action element.
4
80. Magistrate Vadas dismissed all of Remingtons five simple federal statutory claims in the
5
easiest and most efficient manner possible by looking at the elements required and thereafter instantly
6 and obviously concluding that ZERO elements of any claim were met or ever could be met in federal
7 court under the magistrates (Draconian, unfair, but lawful) Rule 37 (b) order barring Remingtons
8 primary environmental expert,s own expert testimony and all other evidence. It is hard to oppose a
9 summary judgment with zero evidence accepted into the case. As the magistrate was fully aware,
10 Remington had the evidence in state court where it had been fully developed, objected to and deposed
for several years.
11
A. The magistrate very clearly left all of Remingtons state causes of action intact for just
12
adjudication in state court where Remington had massively conclusive evidence, and he clearly avoided
13
making any orders or factual findings which would permit collateral estoppel in Judge Reinholtsens
14
state court, however said Judge disagreed, and in so doing made about a dozen, egregious, material and
15
clear legal errors, which Remington will pursue an appellate court as needed.
16 B. Clearly, nothing complex or detailed was determined by the magistrate, only the absence of any
17 disputed facts, and one-sided evidence which absent any rebuttal were apparently a sufficient defense in
18 that Court. Rather clearly, despite the lengthy Magistrates discussions and extensive obiter dicta, NO
19 identical Collateral Estoppel (CE) facts were finally and conclusively determined in federal court which
20 were remotely applicable in state court to eliminate those causes there. Nor were any causes of action
21
res judicata, clarified by the magistrate or barred from the state proceedings to prevent a future injustice
to defendants.
22
81. This Court is now requested to clearly state exactly WHAT issues were actually
23
determined by Judge Vadas ambiguous opinion, Document 93; and then Precisely WHAT identical
24
State related issues WERE similarly determined and precluded by CE, IF ANY. Remington herein
25
argues that no issues at all were fully litigated, conclusively determined and therefore precluded in
26
state court under collateral estoppel, and that applies especially to the concepts of contamination,
27 asbestos, hazardous wastes and/or pollutants being conclusively determined and therefore forever
28 barred in state or any court. Judge Reinholtsen in granting defendants MIL #20 eventually made the
apparently absurd ruling that Remington could not hereafter refer to any of those terms and the100+
other variations thereof cited in the previous sentence. The Magistrate never determined that
Remingtons land was not contaminated or polluted but merely that without an environmental expert
he could not prove Mathson and RAO violated any federal environmental statutes. Rather obvious to
32
1
the magistrate and everyone else was that Remington had incurred numerous state damages which
2
could be resolved and remediated in state court, which Judge Reinholtsen seemed to agree until that
3
above-cited odd moment in mid-June 2016 when he abruptly reversed himself and attempted to
4
dismiss all of Remingtons contamination related causes of action from the bench thereafter. In mid-
5
February 2017 Remington will begin the education process beginning with the concept that
6 irrespective of all Judge Reinholtsens MIL #20 rulings which he thinks dismiss all of Remingtons
7 cases, the continuing nuisance in California as defined by the Mangini I-III, 230 Cal. App. 3d 1125
8 (1991) and 12 Cal 4th 1087, 1093 (1996) & Starrh and Starrh, 153 Cal App 4th 583, 593 (2007), and
9 related cases allows Remington to collect damages for the three previous years including reasonable
10 remediation costs as determined by a jury in a trial. Further, a continuing trespass refers to the
continuing damages and not the continuing original events of encroachment and most importantly
11
despite the state courts erroneously thinking that a continuing nuisance/trespass requires
12
hydrocarbons flowing in water, that is NONSENSE and in fact is far from and has nothing
13
whatsoever to do with the definition of a continuing trespass.
14
A . To prove that, Remington has cited about 30-pages of other NON-underground HC
15
encroachment cases beginning with Spaulding and Cameron, 38 Cal 2d 265, 269 for the proposition
16 that hydrocarbons are not required in a continuing trespass, because under Mangini, the only criteria
17 for a jury to determine is whether the land can be remediated at a reasonable cost. The Field-
18 Escandon v. DeMann (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3D 228, 234 standard that a continuing contamination
19 must vary in magnitude over different months and years in different weather conditions etc. is an
20 alternative criteria or standard but is not a requirement to prove a continuing trespass-nuisance,
21
however, in all of Remingtons cases we also have ALL that as the contaminated dumps are on a 45-
60 slope, which erodes constantly from wind and water and numerous damaging land-slides occur
22
there every year which drastically changes the entire dumpsite every few years, in exact accordance
23
with Judge Reinholtsens inferential expectations and Escandon, ID, above.
24
B. Conversely, which non-identical issues were NOT affected and still remain here today,
25
NOW needs to be litigated and factually determined by a JURY in an adversarial hearing, either
26
HERE or in Eureka Superior Court, where BOTH sides can reasonably present evidence. WE do
27 now have a HUGE amount of material and conclusive EVIDENCE, as proven by the attached
28 photos, and several eminent, irrefutable environmental experts, plus the preeminent expert John
Aveggios to depositions and large related testing and declaration files.
82. The Magistrates summary judgment dismissal was clearly NOT on the merits after an
adversarial hearing and although correct, proper and no longer disputed THERE in 2011, it is still
not fairly, reasonably or justly CE today. Defendants original contamination from 1998 and
33
1
continuously since then, plainly exists still to all senses and appears catastrophically damaging in
2
all scientific tests; plus, the public interest and its HEALTH are SUFFERING due to the airborne
3
microscopic asbestos fibers, benzene and led vapors also blowing up wind into the community; the
4
fully explained contamination of Remington Creek by subterranean and surface water flows from
5
Mathsons landfill, and the resulting serious contamination of Humboldt Bay and its surrounding
6 national wildlife preserves; plus, the present loss of 50,000,000 gallons of drinking water annually
7 from Remington Creek that is now unfit to drink or use for agriculture, however Remington has a
8 detailed plan for capturing, storing, pumping, selling and distributing it after these toxic waste
9 dump set been remediated.
10 83. The law should be just and logical and at the moment we have said above massive
contamination affecting the lower directly adjacent national water courses PLUS the deadly,
11
invisible to the naked eye, friable asbestos and chrysotile fibers blowing-up onto Westgate Drive,
12
where young, old and all ages of humans and other animals BREATH that toxic, carcinogenic air
13
directly off of the dump. Therefore, we now have an ABSURD situation on numerous levels,
14
relating to reality, and the fact of what is ACTUALLY here on the ground, but totally denied
15
as unimportant by Judge Reinholtsen. The latter is willing to totally screw Remington in
16 the public based on no facts and a totally erroneous collateral estoppel interpretation of
17 nonexistent magistrate orders.
18 84. The actual contamination problems and issues described above are actually here in real
19 life daily, as proven by any visitors lying eyes and nose and by ALL scientific experts tests ever
20 conducted on these properties plus the many sworn supporting expert opinions from both sides of
21
the case. Although the primary environmental expert here, Aveggio, is DEAD, partly due to his
exposure to these dumps, nevertheless this court, or the state court, should Issue an injunction to
22
remediate these sites based on those FACTS cited above, and not on some dumb, careless but
23
honest, NON-PREJUDICIAL pro se Rule 26 disclosure error, which Remington did not understand
24
or have the time or the interest to deal with at the time in spring 2011 while he was preparing for
25
various state trials and settlement negotiations which appeared to be destined for conclusive
26
resolution of these lawsuits. Yet, here we are, because among other things, Remington was totally
27 deceived by Gans and his formulating RICO enterprise which apparently never intended any just
28 resolution of these lawsuits other than the RICO enterprises objectives thoroughly recited in
Volume II & IV. Under all relevant and reasonable California Supreme Court case law, these
contaminated sites should be remediated because that is reasonable and it is also in the publics
interest to do so, and that fact and legal standard should override any technical defensive collateral
estoppel issues, non-issues and State Court judicial errors which have been made here recently.
34
1
85. Defendants were never able to cite any specific magistrate order or factual finding in their
2
hundreds of pages of supporting documents purportedly supporting collateral estoppel. Therefore,
3
neither was Judge Reinholtsen enabled to provide any single specific identical issue or factual
4
finding by the magistrate which was applicable in the state case. Yet here we are, and this court is
5
requested to look at and adjudicate this collateral estoppel issue as the most important conflict
6 between the parties and also potentially between the state and federal systems, which need to
7 communicate with and understand each other and reach consistent decisions on the facts especially
8 when the state court purportedly is relying on a believed erroneous interpretation of a federal
9 summary judgment order.
10 86. SEE all cited contamination photos previously attached to prove what is actually HERE:
including #s 1-6; #s 7-12; #s 13-18 and #s 23-31, ETC, for all the contaminated debris including
11
the underground gas station accessories, contaminated water, asbestos and scores of related issues
12
and materials requiring REMOVAL. As explained, Remington has at least 10,000 pertinent photos.
13
87. Remington requests An INJUNCTION (Rules 65 and 57) under TSCA (15 USC
14
2601-2627) to ORDER the REMOVAL of all trespassing, buried and concealed polluted materials
15
which Defendants fully admitted recently in a July-August 2016 SOL trial that they DUMPED
16 and BURIED on Remingtons land in 1998 and thereafter; i.e., REMEDIATION of his property
17 and abatement of defendants nuisance and trespass is requested.
18 88. Remington also requests compensation and/or reimbursement for ALL related physical,
19 emotional and monetary damages and litigation costs resulting from said Mathsons, RAO, Olson,
20 Skillings, Randall and The Citys massive unlawful hauling, dumping, disposal, release, burial,
21
further fraudulent concealment and contemporary conspiratorial perjured cover-up (as
specifically enumerated herein in the pendant state fraud claim allegations and the RICO allegations
22
in Volume II) of their contaminated, polluted, and very hazardous toxic and carcinogenic materials,
23
mixed-in with MANY other extensively cited, unsuitable, unlawful and adverse substances. Said
24
toxins include, without limitation: lead, friable asbestos, fibrous Chrysotile particles, benzene
25
vapors, degraded diesel, motor oil and gasoline soaked soils and water, carcinogenic dusts and
26
infectious bacteria, and all of the other 3-4 pages of toxic and adverse substances are listed most
27 completely in the Summary Judgment Separate Statement lists, but are largely copied below into
28 Statement of Facts near pages 68-71, below.
89. A more comprehensive list follows below. [PHOTOS of actual hazardous debris put
on Plaintiffs land by defendants are Photo #s: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 27,
28, 29 & 31, some as artistic representations to fit on one page]. That was in fall 2016, and in
March 2017 Remington added 49 more photos about one third of which are pertinent here.
35
1
90. The contaminated non-native substances in all states of matter were deeply buried on
2
and under Remingtons VERY STEEP redwood forested property around 1998-2000, but said
3
dumped debris continue to change, move under gravity, wind and water forces, and to cause
4
additional damages in soil, water and air, with varying effects and continuous migrations, above
5
and below ground, by all the methods listed herein.
6 91. Rule 65 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF under CAA, 42 USC 7401-7671g (2000) and 15
7 USC 2641-2655, (asbestos). John Aveggio of SHNs extensive investigations and sampling of
8 the dump area in 2010-11, planting excavations in 2006-10, and subsequent discoveries by Dr.
9 McEdwards, Remington, Gans, Mathson and Ferriman, etc., have revealed extensive amounts of
10 asbestos in many forms. Western Analytics tests of Aveggios 2010 samples revealed large
quantities of 20% asbestos pipe and LETHAL 60% friable asbestos Chrysotile and several OTHER
11
variations of asbestos reinforced pipes and similar furry friable substances such as Crocidolite are
12
inferentially present here, which will be tested in the future.
13
92. Rule 65 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF for extensive CWA violations, under 33 USC
14
1251-1387 (2000). Prior to 2011 there were many informal and anecdotal observations, and photos
15
(e.g. #8 & #9) of serious hydrocarbon and metals contamination in groundwater and seepages
16 below Mathsons dumped debris, seeping from Mathsons exclusive land and dump and then
17 seeping and oozing from the surface of Remingtons land. The cause and hydrocarbon sources are
18 self-evident by scientific investigation and can ONLY emanate from defendants dump.
19 93. The County, SHN and Defendants experts and testers all saw hydrocarbon sheens, odors
20 in waters across the bottom of Remingtons land, in the swamp area, Remington Creek and at
21
Test hole #1 Photo #8) adjacent to and only 15 below the property line and IN the MAIN dumped
debris themselves, on Remingtons land5. Over the earlier years, from 2007-2011, after Stevens
22
Ecology testing, but before any formal SHN or County scientific sampling was done, The creek and
23
tanks C and D which drew water from said creek all had a slight HC, diesel-like odor and the
24
sediment on the bottom of tank D had a strong such odor. Remington and Aveggio have testified to
25
that fact, and conducted numerous informal material and competent anecdotal tests prior to 2011.
26
27 5.Defendants primary environmental experts Ferriman and Gwinn (in the presence of Gans and
Remington stuck a stick in said test hole #1, portrayed in Photo #8 and smelled it. When it smelled
28 of diesel-like motor oil substances they hastily tossed it into the brush, where Remington retrieved it
so we ALL could smell it. Unmistakable odors, which they did not comment on there, revealed what
our prior and later tests proved: there are unmistakable hydrocarbons, iron, benzene, lead, bacteria
and a plethora of other substances exuding from Mathsons dump from 8-10 feet below ground at the
bottom of that bank, along the main path. That water and muck sampling has been called THE
STICK TEST and is a milestone here, because it is defendants ONLY known recorded test on
Remingtons land, and was witnessed by all parties and participants.
36
1
94. The Stevens Ecology water tests in 2009 confirmed and roughly calibrated those
2
results numerically, confirming the presence below Mathsons dump of a vast array of the
3
hydrocarbon gasoline, diesel and motor oil components plus many other adverse substances listed
4
below.
5
95. Subsequently there have been many other consistent and independently sampled water
6 tests done, chronologically: 1) The absolutely conclusive stick test done by ALL defendants
7 experts simultaneously on July 6, 2011 by Ferriman, Gwinn and Gans, (in Remingtons presence,
8 per FN #5, page 36) where they stuck a stick in test hole #1 (previously part of the Stevens and
9 other county and related anecdotal observations) and then frantically discarded it when it smelled
10 strongly of diesel-like hydrocarbon derivatives. HOWEVER, Gwinn didnt throw it far enough off
the path and we all smelled it first, and noted the presence of hydrocarbons well-above the HC
11
smell threshold; 2) The extensive, thorough August 1-2, 2011 water tests by John Aveggio showing
12
strong positives for diesel, motor oil and some gasoline components in test holes #1, #2 and #3, IN
13
the dump itself or directly below it in the swamp areas, e.g. Photos #7 & #8); 3) The Humboldt
14
County, Maje Hoyos water and soil tests for hydrocarbons in 3 different areas, never tested
15
previously, which resulted in positive readings for hydrocarbons, including one test VERY HIGH,
16 in the swamp area where most subterranean water flowing beneath the dump appears to flow into.
17 96. The above are all NEW test results, NOT part of the 2009 Federal action, or collateral
18 estoppel in the 2008 DR 080678 Judge Reinholtsen ruling, and prove continuing and varying
19 contamination of all surface and subterranean waters flowing-off of or beneath the dumped debris.
20 95% of the tests and toxic substances sampled and photographed herein were NOT discovered,
21
known or hence complained about in 2008-9 when the first Federal complaint was completed. ALL
major relied upon scientific tests here were conducted in or after 2010-11, such as ALL asbestos
22
investigations, analyses and statistical calculations; all locally tested and important hydrocarbon
23
tests by SHN and the County, plus the crucial discovery of the UST in the creek (PHOTO #31
24
simulates how it rolled down from defendants dump around 1998 into the creek where it still rests
25
TODAY. See also now #s 58-60); and Photo # 11 is the end of a large 500+ pound hydraulic gas
26
station LUBE BAY lift cylinder, PROVING that gas station remediation spoils are the primary
27 component in the fill drove the economics of RAOs FOR-PROFIT criminal SCHEME here,
28 which Remington is still attempting to undo after 18 years.
97. Here in this 2016 successive continuing Federal statutory and common law action, we
only seek damages and remediation costs for the past THREE (3) years, i.e. from about October
2013 to 2016. Additionally, we request all expense involved with removing the hazardous
substances which exude said hydrocarbons and the other toxins complained of (from lead and
37
1
asbestos fibers to lethal iron concentrations and infectious/epidemic levels of ecoli/coliform and
2
related fecal bacterial readings, best portrayed by Photo #7. The contaminated waters seeping from
3
beneath the dump in Photo #7 is only about 25 linear feet from and 10 BENEATH the types of
4
debris shown in 2008 in Photo #6, which resulted from the activities of Photos #2-#5, etc.
5
98. Rule 65 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF for SDWA violations, 42 USC 300f-300j-26. Each
6 of these individual statutes provide slightly different relief and/or overlapping relief and in any
7 event most of these above (and below) allegation, scientific data foundation and statutory
8 authorities are NEW, and have never before been asserted by Remington.
9 99. The NEW allegations alleged today, which were first argued in 2009 on insufficient
10 evidence, under the duplicative statutes, CWA, CERCLA and RCRA, are all based TODAY on the
entirely ALL NEW 2010-11 important material scientific facts summarized above, and developed by
11
all experts in the case long AFTER any material filings were made or even possible in the 2009
12
case.
13
100. Said 2009 Federal case essentially had no important federally relevant material scientific
14
input (or any significant, admissible testing data from Remingtons land really), and NONE of the
15
crucial 2010- 2011 evidence touched-on above, as all Remingtons evidence of every sort, from
16 All of the numerous tests done and the dozen or more crucially important declarations and
17 depositions, were not recognized by the magistrate or admissible after John Aveggio was
18 inadvertently improperly disclosed. Gans already had all of the above information and evidence
19 in the state case, but that did not influence the magistrates draconian technical granting of
20 summary judgment, against the federal claims because no admissible evidence was in the record to
21
sustain any of them.
101. The Magistrate canceled all oral PO proceedings and/or SJ hearings and made-up his mind
22
to send Remingtons case back to state court. Hence, there were NO pre-trial motions, no
23
opportunity to amend Remingtons complaint (to add asbestos or any of the salient factual
24
allegations herein) and no way to augment any expert witness lists. The Magistrate thus FROZE
25
and then shattered Remingtons first 2009 Federal case completely, telegraphed that it was OVER,
26
and effectively TERMINATED all substantive proceedings around mid-August, 2011.
27 A. That was exactly when Remingtons most significant evidence was developed and just
28 after the important July 2011 expert depositions were held, which produced ALL new crucial case
changing facts and issues, NONE of which reached the 2009 Federal case or Magistrates
courtroom.
B. On July 1, 2011, Remingtons Environmental SHN expert Aveggio refuted ALL
defendants testing and logic on July 1, 2011, which would have led to a January trial victory fro
38
1
Remington, however the magistrate was NOT interested and had already decided that Gans LIES
2
were the truth and that Remington and SHN were the liars! Thereafter, the magistrate barred all of
3
Aveggios preeminent expert testimony and also disallowed Remingtons expert testimony, based
4
solely on Gans corrupt, derogatory and incompetent unverified motion comments, without any
5
qualification hearing or knowledge whatsoever about Remingtons very extensive engineering,
6 mathematical and scientific qualifications.
7 102. Two years of Aveggios contientious, brilliant, important evidentiary work here was thus
8 lost because Remington did not think any further disclosures were needed to the hated Gans, who
9 deliberately precipitated Remingtons dumb pro se disclosure errors, by inciting and
10 escalating the minor personality conflict we had in early 2011. Remington argued THEN (and
now) that BECAUSE defendants had deposed Aveggio TWICE by that time and had 200+ Aveggio
11
SWORN, material testimonial pages, which included at least 100% of any possible Federal
12
testimony we had planned, therefore, ALL AVEGGIOS FEDERAL TRIAL TESTIMONY WAS
13
BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY DISCLOSED IN GOOD FAITH, AND AT THAT
14
POINT WAS LITERALLY KNOWN BETTER TO GANS THAN TO REMINGTON HIMSELF!
15
In other words, common sense dictated that all of Aveggios testimony and work was fully in the
16 state court record and known better by Gans then by Remington himself, hence Remington felt he
17 had met his common sense and ethical burden under the intent of Rule 26. He also thought it had
18 been established that all state discovery was interchangeable with federal discovery and hence
19 duplicating the expensive state discovery and federal discovery appeared stupid and unnecessary,
20 but the Magistrate disagreed. ALL of those common sense and reasonable assumptions made in the
21
interests of justice turned out to be diametrically wrong.
103. Apparently, it was Remington who was stupid in attempting to streamline an
22
intrinsically unfair, unjust, inefficient and obsolete process in parallel cases prosecuted in courts
23
three blocks apart. Furthermore, Magistrate Vadas had a very grandiose idea of his importance, and
24
decorated and conducted his court somewhere between Robespierre and Louis XIV, which the
25
magistrate apparently sensed that Remington did not fully buy into. SoAllrupt illegal means and
26
several material perjured facts, including the fabrication that he had properly met and conferred
27 close quote with Remington about his August 2011 protective order and summary judgment
28 motions. He also misrepresented SHNs August testing, and by September 2011 he had totally
gone BAD as evidenced in his very nasty and totally mischaracterized Summary Judgment
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which it took Remington about 50 pages to refute in a
Declaration.

39
1
6. CONTINUING, SUCCESSIVE RCRA VIOLATIONS,
2
42 USC 6901-6992 (k), 7002, etc.
3
106. As discussed above, approximately 95% of all Remingtons admissible, primary trial
4
evidence in BOTH cases (state and federal) was developed and understood AFTER August 2011,
5
when the Magistrate had already torpedoed Remingtons federal case and set it on fire, like a
6 kamikaze attack, called-in by Gans. In August and September 2011 Remington just frantically tried
7 to put-out the fire (topside) and repair the gapping holes below, and failed at both tasks. The fire
8 was extinguished and the torpedo holes were partially patched, so Remingtons ship could limp
9 on towards port in the 9th circuit, however the damage was done and the war was OVER already.
10 What Remington believed to be a UNITED STATES NAVY ship, suddenly turned into an obsolete
sinking Japanese one and by the time Remington limped into port (in either country), the war was
11
OVER, LOST and the ship was sold for scrap.
12
107. THIS complaint is a new battle and a new successive action war, based only on tests
13
done AFTER the prior 2009 federal case, on all NEW expert depositions, new damages and the
14
now exactly known 2011 remediation costs calculated over the past 3 years, as based on SHNs
15
RAP plan from June 2011, which also was NOT involved in the first Federal case. The remediation
16 costs for any 3-year period are very similar at the upper portion of dump anyway, however other
17 types of damages and costs vary greatly, especially as relating to increasing PHYSICAL INJURIES.
18 Remington has suffered egregious, extremely crippling physical illnesses and several
19 PERMANENT physical, bodily injuries, as described below, SINCE 2013. See e.g. Photo #32 from
20 January 2015.
21
7. CONTINUING, SUCCESSIVE ACTION CERCLA VIOLATIONS,
42 USC 9601-9662+ and CFR 302.4, etc.
22
108. CERCLA relief for additional toxins and costs, for removal of large quantities of
23
asbestos and non-hydrocarbon contaminants, to the extent they do not duplicate other relief or are
24
actually NEEDED here, are requested here. Cumulatively, a (state or likely faster federal) jury
25
should find defendants GUILTY on all counts of pollution and contamination, and then
26
Remingtons rather complex damages (varying as to each 3-year period) can be individually
27 calculated, estimated and/or negotiated in a lump sum resolution.
28 109. Obviously, it would be costly to prove, expertly argue and medically and expertly
ATTEMPT TO REFUTE all of Remingtons 40+ types of damages and costs. Possibly it would be
foolish for defendants to spend another $50,000+ resolving all the complex indemnities, rents, great
benefits to the Mathsons of having Remington provide free foundational support for their property,
triple trespass damages, some certain physical injury and possibly even punitive damages, ETC.
40
1
A. However, neither side has shown much prudence, logic, economy or self-restraint, so
2
scheduling all this for the first fair trial date possible, presumably in a SMART big-city setting next
3
time seems like the most efficient way to resolve these escalating issues going forward, and is
4
hence REQUESTED.
5
110. GANS AND DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS OF VWPA OF 1982, 18 USC 1512-15.
6 The Victim And Witness Protection Act of 1982 created a federal civil cause of action
7 authorizing a United States District Court to restrain the harassment of crime victims and witnesses
8 or to prevent and restrain existing or imminent violations of 18 USC 1512, and 1513, excluding
9 those consisting of misleading conduct. Although a government attorney is ultimately responsible
10 for bringing such an action under 1514, and sets out the manner in which such an attorney can
obtain either a temporary or permanent restraining or protective order, in the instant case,
11
Remington is actively dealing with criminal authorities as this document is being read and therefore
12
this cause of action is made in anticipation of future activities by such, as applies specifically, so
13
far, to Foget, Figas and Remington.
14
A. 1512. Defendants specific violations under the following specific subsection numbers
15
of 1512, are as follows:
16 (a) (2) (A): Defendants, and many of them as described in the detailed RICO statement,
17 threatened the use of physical force to influence, delay and prevent the testimony and other related
18 activities of Foget, Figas and Remington, and all three of the above allegations applied to the first
19 two named witnesses;
20 (a) (2) (B) (ii): The same above identified defendants also caused, induced or otherwise
21
altered, destroyed, mutilated and/or concealed an object with intent to impair the integrity or
availability of an evidentiary object which was being used or anticipated to be used in an official
22
proceeding. Specifically, this allegation pertains, without limitation to: Gans, John Mathson,
23
Skillings and Kishpaugh with respect to the investigations and testimony of Remington, Dr.
24
McEdwards, Bruckner, Clemans and Hoyos, among others;
25
B. (b): The above described defendants listed in the RICO statement also knowingly used
26
intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasions, misleading conduct, and/or also attempted to do all of
27 those improper actions or conduct, with intent to:
28 (1) Influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) Said above defendants, especially Gans as complained of in the RICO statement, but also
many of the others, also caused or induced witnesses on both sides of this case to:
(A) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document or other object from an official
proceeding, which proceedings here included the 2016 SOL trial, the imminent 2017 state
41
1
contamination trial, and the one here;
2
(B) Alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal an object with the intent to impair the objects
3
integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. Here, that most specifically relates to
4
Gans, Mathsons and other defendants intentional destruction, removal and spoliation of evidence
5
on Remingtons side of the fence, which evidence has been fully photographed and documented for
6 10-years, and therefore the exact degree of mutilation, destruction, removal or concealment of many
7 significant evidentiary objects can be fully-documented with still and video photography;
8 C. (c) Many of the above defendants as specifically named in the RICO statement,
9 themselves corruptly:
10 (1) Altered, destroyed, mutilated and/or concealed other objects, or attempted to do so

with the intent to impair the objects integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. This
11
allegation applies most particularly to John Mathson and Russell Gans who are seen on hours of
12
surveillance video violating the statute (SEE Photos #54-55, ETC.), but inferentially applies to
13
Skillings, Kishpaugh, Randall, Gwinn, Hillyard, Ferriman and likely several others according to
14
discovered proofs;
15
(d) The said defendants named in the RICO statement also intentionally harassed, without
16 limitation: Figas, Foget, Aveggio, Remington, Hoyos, Bruckner, Dr. McEdwards and others, which
17 resulted in hindering their work, delays, preventions and/or dissuasions from some of the aboves
18 physical attending or testifying at an official proceeding, or affecting their presentation therefore,
19 both previously and going forward.
20 D. 1513. Remington further alleges that the various named defendants in the RICO
21
statement as particularly described each knowingly engaged in conduct which damaged the
tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against that
22
person for attending the trial as a witness or providing any testimony or other object as a
23
witness at an official proceeding, or for providing information related to the commission or possible
24
commission of a federal offense such as those alleged in the RICO statement. Specifically, as
25
described at length in the RICO statement, this allegation refers primarily to Skillings, Gans and
26
Olsons intimidation, coercion and extortion of and threats against Bob Figas over several years and
27 similar threats, retaliation and worse specific violent and destructive actions and crimes, as
28 described against Remington and some of his other experts, which were named.
E. 1514 (d). Although somewhat premature on the record existing today in federal court, in
the state court there has been considerable harassment of victims and witnesses as explained in the
RICO statement, and in order to be consistent with that record Gans and his RICO enterprise

42
1
leadership are going to need to be consistent and to block the testimony of Remington, Figas, Hoyos,
2
Clemans, Dr. McEdwards and all others who oppose the enterprises totally corrupt, purported defense.
3
F. At the proper time, Remington or a suitable attorney for the government will apply for a
4
temporary restraining order under this statute. In that regard, under (d): the term course of conduct
5
means a series of harassing acts of Remington and his witnesses over a period of time indicating a
6 continuity of purpose. Harassment has been fully perpetuated here by defendants it means a serious
7 act or course of conduct directed at Remington and is named witnesses which cause substantial
8 emotional distress and serve no other legitimate purpose. John Mathson, Gans, Skillings et al all
9 harassed Remington and his witnesses under the statute and went beyond that to include under (d) (1)
10 (C) all of Remingtons immediate family members, including his three young granddaughters; Under
(D) defendants also intimidated all of the above named Remington Associates and is described in the
11
RICO statement specifically caused severe fear and apprehension in all of the above named associates,
12
but especially in his three granddaughters; and, none of the defendants intimidating actions served any
13
legitimate purpose beyond intimidation, extortion, sadism and/or the attempt to make Remingtons
14
family unhappy and to drive them away from this community.
15
G. 1515. (1) Under these statutes, the term official proceeding means a proceeding before
16 a federal court or United States magistrate judge only, which here includes Remingtons prior federal
17 case CV 09 4547 NJV and this case, which within two weeks of discoverys inception will necessitate
18 involving all of the corruption and misleading conduct, which will be required by Gans to be
19 consistent with the state corruption and RICO objectives;
20 H. (3) (A) Similarly, the term misleading conduct means knowingly making a false statement
21
which in the state cases, and therefore in order to be consistent in the federal case, Gans and his RICO
writings and generalship will need to imminently begin making false statements here, which from time
22
to time will be a majority of all of their oral and written statements;
23
I. (3) (B) Gans in most of his prior federal case statements, from 2010-14 also intentionally
24
omitted information from every statement if it were to favor Remington for his activities in any
25
manner. For example, pages 685-722, ETC of the RICO statement outlined many of Gans federal
26
court transgressions but did not yet get into full detail regarding ALL of his corrupt deceptions at the
27 very beginning of the appellate process where he attempted to block Remingtons appeal, on the false
28 and intentionally misrepresented grounds that it was not timely and made under the wrong statute
[BOTH accusations knowingly false] and on several other improper and frivolous grounds, which
were all easily rejected by the Ninth Circuit, however.
J. In the pre-brief motion activity lasting 3-6 months, Remington went about five for five
against Gans corrupt and improper oppositions, however, all of that took an emotional toll and a lot of
43
1
Remingtons time and energy. Gans made an all-out attempt to block Remingtons Ninth Circuit
2
appeal and opening brief for many months, with a campaign of nearly total deception, mostly
3
misleading statements and direct flagrant misrepresentations of the filing dates, times, manner and
4
statutes under which Remington filed his reconsideration documents originally before the appeal, all
5
of which made Remingtons life difficult, as any deliberate criminal acts are likely to do to the victim.
6 K. That is Gans primary and maybe only modus operandi: presenting technicalities and
7 frivolous obstacles to Remingtons just contamination case because he has no valid scientific or moral
8 defense to it and therefore must attempt to end it on very frivolous legal grounds, purely technical
9 grounds (as explained in the above cited RICO statement pages), or possibly valid legal grounds such
10 as statute of limitations, collateral estoppel or summary adjudication, or as a last resort by criminal

RICO racketeering activity and objectives as explained in the RICO statement; but, in any event there
11
is no way Gans can try his defense on the merits. If this court forces same, it will not get to the
12
courtroom.
13
L. Likewise, Gans and the Enterprises essentially continuous misleading conduct is intended to
14
do many corrupt purposes including concealing all true and important material facts and thereby
15
creating the false impression that Remingtons evidence is inadequate and that his is conclusive and
16 important. What is misleading there is that the RICO enterprise really has no scientific information
17 from Remingtons property at all, because they never made even a single intentional test there. Their
18 stick test was stupid and unintentional and is now an important case fact
19 M. (3) (C) Defendants blatant misleading conduct went far-beyond the above in all cases
20 and extended to Brisso, Plotz and McBride in their flagrantly and continuously misrepresented
21
motion documents, which hear the site one example only would involve Gans summary judgment
miss quotations of the federal magistrate in his collateral estoppel documents. Simply put, as
22
described elsewhere, Gans blatantly and fraudulently plagiarized the magistrates written order, by
23
literally rewriting the last 12-words of a crucial sentence wherein Gans deleted the magistrates
24
words and added his own totally different meaning words which deceitfully favored his own case.
25
That attempted fraud on two different courts was perpetrated on two judges that were too busy,
26
unmotivated and biased against a pro per litigant for them to have time to actually locate and study
27 all of the source documents to prove that Gans/Plotz fraud. Remington of course was all over the
28 fraud for dozens of pages, but did not put it succinct enough to convince a biased court to what was
true and/or just. When an officer of the court declares that the magistrate had ordered something
officer of the court as honest and truthful. Here, that was and usually is far from the truth, and then
fully exposing these lies in frauds, and then getting some kind of punishment from a state court is
essentially impossible, under the present Humboldt County judicial conditions;
44
1
N. (3) (D) Additionally, when we do get into this federal court and also previously in
2
Magistrate Vadas court in CV 09 4547 NJV, (2009) Gans well-established misleading conduct has
3
been intended to mislead by knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a map, photograph or
4
boundary mark or other object that is misleading in at least one or more material respects; and
5
O. (a) (3) (E): Finally, last but not least, Gans and the Enterprises leadership misleads all
6 litigants and courts, such as this court, by knowingly using a trick, scheme or device with intent to
7 mislead. It took Remington several years to analyze and notice the consistent corrupt
8 patterns in defendants motion documents and especially the false logic syllogisms set-up with
9 Gans false conclusion backed up by one or more false premises usually including at least one or
10 more truthful one and one or more false ones which inevitably lead to a false conclusion. Gans is a
master at that technique and whatever you see the phrases obviously or it is self-evident, etc.,
11
that means that Gans has no evidence and his conclusion is based on false premise logic. PLOTZ
12
also does that now also, but presumably it is Gans final edits which complete the very artful false
13
logic that is always used to refute essentially any position that Remington takes, with obvious very
14
misleading intent.
15
111. FALSE CLAIMS ACTS VIOLATIONS, 31 USC 3729 (a) (1) (A) & (G) - 3733, et seq.
16 Defendants in both portions of this lawsuit or known to have presented false or fraudulent
17 claims for payment or approval to various governments of all levels including the city of Eureka.
18 Such fraudulent claims would include the understatement of state and federal taxes by virtue of
19 defendants providing false records and statements material to such transactions, here specifically by
20 RAO and all its employees both named and so far unnamed, and also John Mathson, relative to
21
their illicit dumping projects in the 1990s and 2000s. Under payment of taxes would be a violation
of (a) (1) D). Additionally, defendants have made false claims to Remington and also to Farmers
22
Insurance company with resulting consequences according to future proofs.
23
112. This cause of action can be construed as a qui tan lawsuit, where Remington is a civil
24
whistleblower.
25
A. During Discover or likely sooner, Remington will provide information to the
26
government including the city of Eureka about how RAO bilked-them out of substantial sums of
27 money with their short-haul scheme for hauling hazardous materials to Mathsons instead of Eastern
28 California or Nevada. Remington also has additional information regarding said defendants,
including the RICO defendants fraud, corruption and related illegal activity which caused the
various governments substantial sums of money. Remington will be the relator in these subsequent
lawsuits which may at some point become separate from this one.

45
1
113. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A RULE 65 INJUNCTION TO ORDER
2
MATHSON TO ERECT A NEEDED DUMP RETAINING WALL.
3
A. Introduction: Under the Supplemental Authority of Rule 65, 18 USC 1367, a retaining
4
wall is needed NOW, along the property line between Remingtons northern border and Mathsons
5
southern border to prevent landslides of hazardous materials onto Remingtons land during the
6 remediation, now expected to occur in summer 2017 to block the present and imminent additional
7 slides and erosion of hazardous materials further down onto Remingtons lands and to support the
8 new agreed fence along Pulley line (now prematurely being built WRONG). It is obvious to an
9 engineer and expert in the excavation field, which Remington is, that when we excavate defendants
10 hazardous wastes from Remingtons land which are 8-15 feet deep at the property line across the
main dump area, a vertical excavation at the property line will destabilize the 15-foot deep of debris
11
directly up the mountain from that remedial excavation, which were supported by (and are today)
12
the large volumes of material which we intend to excavate. Right now, there are more than 500 yd.
13
supporting Mathsons yard and other illegally dumped materials presently on his own land, and it is
14
those materials which need to be stabilized in order to prevent another several hundred yards of
15
hazardous materials from collapsing further onto Remingtons land.
16 114. Remington has the legal right to remove hazardous materials from his land and
17 defendants have no right to steal Remingtons land without compensation to act as a
18 foundation for Mathsons entire property above. That theft of Remingtons land caused by
19 defendants encroaching trespasses is the wrong that we are attempting to remedy here and it is not
20 Remingtons responsibility to stabilize Mathsons illegal debris at the property line. The only
21
alternative to an engineered retaining wall set firmly into native soils, probably on pilings, would be
if defendants remove all of their hazardous debris at their property line by excavating 15-feet deep
22
at the property line and then making a suitable taper back onto their land, at about a 5:1 ratio of
23
horizontal distance to depth, which will reduce the likelihood and severity of future landslides,
24
when Remington removes defendants hazardous wastes and debris now illicitly buried on his land.
25
As above, those hazardous wastes, now on Remingtons land today, are 10-15 feet deep at the area
26
in question.
27 115. In other words, said above INJUNCTION would ORDER Mathson and all Defendants
28 insurers to build a proper engineered retaining wall between the properties across the main dump
area at the Pulley line where the hazardous and contaminated debris is 8-15 deep. That retaining wall
would be intended to prevent and pre-empt future obvious successive action suits caused by the
inevitable additional slides of hazardous materials, describe the above, which eventually would

46
1
obviously occur on a nearly vertical dump slope, during a major earthquake, or several inch rain.
2
See Photo #26, etc., bottom row of landfill collage, analogous here as to landfill wall collapses.
3
116. As explained above, when Remington remediates his land to that depth, landslides are
4
certain to emanate from Mathsons higher land and potentially drop and erode another several
5
hundred cubic yards of debris onto Remingtons cleaned-up and replanted land, requiring a NEW
6 lawsuit for $10-30,000 more to remove another 10-30 truck loads of contaminated and hazardous
7 debris.
8 117. To PREVENT the above damages from future hazardous materials landslides, in addition
9 to said retaining wall, Mathson MUST also install at his expense a 6-8perforated drain pipe on its
10 uphill side, which will capture any contaminated subterranean water at the interface of the dumped
hazardous wastes with the natural mountainside surface, and transfer it several hundred feet downhill
11
to where it can either be treated by one of the parties, as described in the state lawsuits, or just
12
channeled into the county ditches along Ridgewood Drive, to further pollute and the Humboldt Bay
13
wildlife preserves described herein. This court is urged to order that something be done because what
14
is clear is that Mathsons are responsible for all contamination on both of these properties; there are
15
still hydrocarbons in soils which are dissolving and being transferred in various types of waters
16 downhill onto Remingtons land and beyond; and, since the Mathsons have no interest in honestly
17 cleaning-up their own land, let-alone Remingtons, there will be some sort of hydrocarbon migration
18 in all of the types of waters moving and migrating down the mountainside for the indefinite future of
19 at least thousands of years.
20 118. Compounding these above fence, slide, retaining wall and subterranean drainpipe
21
problems is a settlement in Mathsons case against Remingtons insurer (handled by Harvey
Roberts) which was settled, for the extortive and prejudicial purpose of removing Roberts from
22
Remingtons case with a bribe in effect to Gans and Mathson of $20,000, paid to Mathson, the latter
23
of whom was required to use about $5000 of it to build a chain link fence on the Pulley property line
24
between the properties.
25
A. As explained below, Mathson has prematurely begun that fence supported only by their
26
dumped hazardous debris, wherein it should have been properly engineered and erected to a
27 foundational retaining wall, which is permanently and deeply anchored in native soils. What
28 defendants have begun and intend to continue imminently will guarantee the continuation of many
more years of successive action lawsuits after Remington removes the 500-1000 contaminated and
encroaching yards of hazardous wastes from his land.
B. As explained in detail in the RICO statement, defendants egregiously violated the written
contract by starting their fence prematurely before the retaining wall was built and at least several
47
1
years prematurely before any cases are or could possibly be settled, after multiple appeals. THAT new
2
joint fence was not supposed to be built until after DR080678 was finally resolved, however
3
defendants, led by Gans RICO enterprise, have prematurely started it and have caused new damages
4
to Remingtons land during this very hard rainy winter, where the land had not been properly
5
winterized and therefore damaged Remingtons land below. Even before the rains, defendants
6 damaged Remingtons land further by rolling adverse contaminated debris from their premature and
7 unnecessary ditch at the Pulley line, further down onto Remingtons land, which damage greatly
8 accelerated and increased when the hard rains of winter 2016-17 began and which continue today.
9 C. Since Mathson began erecting his new chain-link fence on the Pulley line prematurely, on
10 no proper native soil foundation and BEFORE Remington remediates his land in any case; NOW,
when said remediation does occur with that new fence in place, it will very obviously cause
11
Mathsons new fence to collapse onto Remingtons land, when excavations 10-15 deep occur
12
exactly at the base of said fence. How could any fence withstand that, so why are defendants
13
ignoring these obvious engineering principles and common sense and common law principles?
14
D. All of the above factors and obvious prognostications about the prematurity of building
15
that already begun fence, are obvious in a logical and engineering sense THEREFORE,
16 Remington, who is a Cornell educated, very experienced excavation, structural and practicing
17 engineer (in other specialties), requests this Court to enjoin Mathson from building any fences
18 UNTIL such time as Remingtons land has been remediated, OR alternatively, ORDER defendants
19 to build their fence sooner on top of a proper RETAINING wall, if they desire, which will be strong
20 enough to withstand an excavator digging directly against it 15 deep, at the base of said wall.
21
119. Rule 65 Injunction Ordering A Discovery Property Inspection Of Mathsons Property
22
In This Case And Also In DR140426 Where Discovery Has Been Blocked For 2 Years.
23
An Injunction is requested ordering the lawful Discovery investigation and INSPECTION of
24
various portions of Mathsons land previously barred by Gans and not yet forced or COMPELLED
25
in state court, due to extended stays in Case # DR140426, where inspection has been prejudicially
26
barred since September 2014. Defendants KNOW all too well what we will discover there next
27 and are therefore desperately blocking all honest scientific and material facts from this case. In this
28 NEW federal case an inspection is also needed, for Remingtons experts to confirm and photograph
what Remington already knows and has proven about the significant solid TWIN pipes, which
were carefully designed to protect defendants toxic 55-gallon leaking drums, which we expect to
find buried in Mathsons deep draw. Said investigation will also conclusively prove on the record
the perjury by John Mathson where he swore that he never used his unlawful and unpermitted
48
1
backyard septic system, which we also know is false, from our direct conversations with him around
2
2005. In other words, we need an inspection here and in DR140426 for our experts and for
3
photography, and one investigation will be sufficient for and applicable to BOTH cases.
4
120. A full investigation of the solid twin 6 drainage pipes, will also fully EXPOSE Gans
5
March-April 2016 pre-trial perjuries which were documented on the stenographic record,
6 Mathsons similar perjuries on the same topic mostly from 2010-11 and perhaps most importantly
7 we can finally expose and expertly refute Ferrimans 2011 perjuries surrounding the solid twin 6
8 pipes6 , which he repeatedly swore were a perfect test case for proving that Mathsons fill
9 was benign and not emitting dissolved hydrocarbons into the contaminated springs which all
10 originate on Mathsons land and then seep and ooze down onto Remingtons lower lands in the
region of the swamp, contaminating the entire area.
11
121. Simply put, the next lawful property investigation of Mathsons land, will conclusively
12
prove that Gans and defendants have deliberately perpetrated a serious contamination fraud on at
13
least 3 courts, derived from their fraudulent twin pipes studies in 2010. Remington already has
14
15 6 These large twin drain pipes drench, and swamp Remingtons adjacent and lower land,
causing huge slides every year which greatly damage plaintiffs land below, whenever it rains hard,
16 by dumping enormous volumes of water at very high velocity onto and into Remingtons steep,
muddy ground only six (6) feet from the boundary fence separating the properties. Mathsons 6-inch
17
drain pipes can deliver a maximum of over 500-1000 gallons per MINUTE in a veritable small
18 RIVER and waterfall onto and into plaintiffs wet, very steep adjacent ground where much of that
water immediately disappears underground for about 60-150 feet before bursting forth from a 60-70
19 degree slope on plaintiffs property below. Also substantial erosion occurs in the creek has been
severely silted-up. Below Mathsons pipes, said rivers of high volume, much TOO RAPID
20
uncontrolled and illegal water-runoff and MUD, have already caused serious instability and slides
21 below, which threat and damages increase and continue every rainy season. Plaintiff mitigated his
damages years ago by installing a short diversionary pipe to a pool and continuous pump on his
22 property, which worked successfully for years, however when defendants discovered it, they
23
deliberately, wantonly and maliciously removed said pipe around winter 2007-8, after acquiescing
to it for over five (5) years. Removing Remingtons effective mitigation pipe, allowed additional
24 underground seepage and major erosion, which predicatively caused slides and other damages to
plaintiff as described herein.
25 That egregious disruption of plaintiffs damages-mitigating drain pipe had even by 2008,
26
already caused several severe, difficult and expensive to stabilize slides on plaintiffs property, about
50-80 away and below, and the steep bank for 20-40 feet above said active slide area is now very
27 unstable, seriously cracked, weakened and in imminent danger of further significant collapse in a
heavy rainstorm, because of defendants intentional removal of Remingtons lawful damages
28
mitigating pipe. As a proximate result, defendants have now effectively DESTABILIZED the entire
large area for about 100 below their septic drainage and stream diverting runoff pipes, placing a
large amount of plaintiffs very steep property and planting project in imminent peril and already
resulting in large permanent losses of topsoil and plantings. Most of that was written around 2008,
and since then slides and overall damages have been multiplied by 3-5, according to proofs and
investigations after the hard winter of 2016-17.
49
1
proven and already fully understands The scientific dynamics surrounding the twin pipes and their
2
gravel filled draw. Now we merely need our retained environmental experts plus the Countys
3
Hazardous Materials Unit investigators to verify on the sworn investigatory record those above
4
stated facts which are already known here, which facts are therefore guaranteed to generate at
5
least another 5-6 predicate acts, against Gans, Mathson, Ferriman, Gwinn and Hillyard, at a
6 minimum, in the process.
7 122. Mathsons twin 6-inch solid drainpipes originate at a clean spring in their backyard and then
8 traverse 96-feet down to where they stick out of the steep bank conclusively exposing their
9 composition. In addition to having personally observed and photographed the Western downhill
10 termination of said pipes, Remington found the 4 foot long cut-off ends from each pipe, 12-15 years
ago, and saved them for other purposes, but now has them as a very important trial exhibit to prove
11
all facts surrounding those pipes.
12
123. As described below in FN #7, Said twin pipes can and frequently DO cause grave
13
damage, erosion and new significant slides to Remingtons lower lands7 during any moderately
14
heavy rain, by concentrating unlawful, unnaturally high-volume, unrestrained and uncontrolled
15
river-like flows of water onto his land, at very high volume and velocities, analogous to re-
16 channeling a small stream directly onto steep muddy slopes directly below, on Remingtons land.
17 That unnatural re-channeling of a stream onto the lands of a lower neighbor is unlawful under all
18 known natural and state laws, and obviously has caused and continues to cause severe slope
19 instability and major slide problems directly below. After a heavy rain, a walk about 100 feet below
20 where those twins 6-inch pipes shoot, approximately 1000 gallons per minute of high velocity water
21
onto Remingtons land shows what looks like a 5-10 foot wide river ran down the property causing
22 7 For many years plaintiff maintained a short mitigating drainage pipe described above to capture and
control the enormous concentrated water and raw sewage run-off from defendants upper property
23 about 25 above. After neighborly acquiescing to it for over five (5) years, beginning in early 2008
24 defendants repeatedly, wantonly, knowingly, deliberately, maliciously and/or negligently disturbed,
removed and continued to disrupt that CRUCIAL drainage pipe, rendering it useless by 2007-8.
25 During storms, that pipe previously and importantly controlled an extensive and excessive amount of
narrowly directed relatively high-volume, high-velocity water runoff out of said two large 6 twin
26
pipes which originate from defendants yard and spring above, which pipes drain mostly County
27 drinking water, Spring water and storm surpluses from Mathsons backyard and also putrid sewage
discharges during certain storm conditions from, his extensive, illegal and unpermitted septic fields
28 directly above. Mathsons fill is not drained and never has been as they falsely alleged for several
years, which we relied on and therefore wrote some of those false self- serving defendants FALSE
facts into some of our earlier documents, in error. In 2007-8, whenever plaintiff daily replaced said
drain pipe into its properly functioning position defendants soon moved it aside sufficiently so that it
did not capture and control any of defendants draining water, but rather sent it largely underground,
thus slowly destabilizing the entire hillside, causing MAJOR slide damages below and parts of
Remingtons gardens to errode and collapse into Remington Creek, plus other damages.
50
1
extensive damages as described elsewhere. The water in defendants twin pipes drops about 50
2
vertical feet over approximately 120 horizontal feet, and emerges with sufficient force to generate
3
enough electricity for a substantial number of local residences. Since that high-energy, high-
4
volume, unrestrained and dangerous water is about 25-feet onto Mathsons land, Remington cannot
5
attempt to harness it in generate substantial power from it.
6 124. Plaintiff presently calculates that his total slide mitigating damages at that location to this
7 point are more than $9500, which includes the costs of lost original plants, lost replacement plants,
8 importing large quantities of top soil, mulches and fertilizer by hand carried 5-gallon buckets from
9 more than 100 yards away, and the continued replanting time, materials and costs for about 200
10 major trees, bushes, vines plus bulbs and wildflowers above and in the slide area itself, plus
shoring-up attempts including the placement of large logs in the cracks and ravines, driving
11
numerous pilings and water speed reducers and placing black plastic over certain cracked, eroded
12
and/or weakened areas to direct surface water flows away. Additional damages, difficult to place an
13
exact dollar value upon have also been suffered, according to proofs at trial, for the lost land square
14
footage, large amount of planning, working and monitoring time, large amounts of lost topsoil,
15
fertilizers and imported mulch and the additional silting of the creek causing excessive pump intake
16 burying, wear, cleaning and clogging failures in plaintiffs irrigation pumps directly below and
17 relatively close to said slide. Total monetary damages to plaintiffs land and personal property from
18 erosion and slides in that area continue in 2016, can presently only be estimated and have so far
19 reached at least $35,000, and more by the time of trial. Remington is not yet studied deer for
20 additional damages during this very hard winter, and it is theoretically possible that he has lost a lot
21
more land, topsoil and viable plants than what is listed above, but if so will include that in the FAC.
Monetary damages to the State and the United States, as related to excessive sediment and the
22
eroded-away soils in the creek, bay and lower wetlands also exist, which would need to be
23
determined by environmental expert witnesses from a California State Fish and Game naturalist
24
expert in the future, as needed and according to proofs.
25
125. Similar additional damages caused by Randall on the South side of the creek are
26
independent, continuing, did not seriously manifest themselves until December 2013 and currently
27 are estimated in the $18,000 range for all costs and detriment caused thereby. Additionally, the
28 Randall slide is just below the massive residential structure and potentially could expand easterly
and envelope the entire structure if Remingtons serious mitigation efforts should fail, as alluded to
in the RICO statement.
126. Therefore, SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY UNDER RULE 65, 28 USC 1367 is
requested, i.e. for this Court to assert same and resolve these issues which the state system, judges,
51
1
budgetary, physical, ethical and intellectual restrictions here are rather clearly incapable of justly
2
handling, after 10 years of these disputes, with only a confused continuing mess, so far here to
3
show for it, which represents justice after 8 continuous years of litigation.
4
127. THIS Court needs to convince and/or FORCE defendants to conclude that they are going
5
to have to eventually clean-up their mess, BEFORE Remington and the Mathsons die of old age or
6 unnatural Causes, and not NEVER as they now inferentially assume. In Humboldt County defendants
7 obviously prematurely concluded that they can keep their frivolous anti-societal defenses alive
8 indefinitely, what their contamination continue to do its damages for 1000 years, and until
9 Remington runs out of resources or health. This environmental suit and its companion RICO action
10 are designed to bring All of the defendants in these cases to justice despite the GansRICO
enterprises prestigious all location in the plush Mitchell firm office building.
11
12
128. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR REMEDIATION OF DAMAGES FOR
13
CONTINUING STATE PUBLIC & PRIVATE NUISANCE.
14
State continuing private and public nuisance and complex damages for the years 2013-
15
2016, under CACI 2030 are respectfully requested to be heard and adjudicated HERE8.
16 129. Defendants wanton destruction of, unlawful and uninvited use and the maintenance
17 thereof of Plaintiffs property, as described herein, constitutes a continuing private nuisance under
18 Civil Code, 3479. Defendants deposits of hazardous asbestos, lead, benzene, boron, toxic levels of
19 dissolved iron, chromium, PAHs asphalt, silica dusts, concentrated degraded HCs, derivatives and
20 leaking USTs, cylinders and piping from old service station excavated remediations, and the
21
numerous other so-far discovered adverse substances dumped and permanently deposited adjacent to
and directly above a known watercourse, and ON Remingtons land, was in violation of scores of
22
California, federal and County laws.
23
24
8 Two other time periods are active still today in State Court, but getting nowhere at the moment with a
25 trifurcated trial barely begun, but with no qualified, available judge to administer same at present. That may
change, but it appears today that the federal system is better staffed and more capable of determining
26 complex contested issues more reasonably, expeditiously wisely and impartially, especially where the tricky,
unethical, powerful and far-reaching Eureka Mitchell firm is involved, and implicated here in deep
27
unscrupulous and unlawful behavior, with no judge in Eureka perhaps willing to stand-up to the mighty,
28 influential Brisso or Gans. BOTH with well-proven ethical and honesty shortcomings in these cases,
especially the LATER, whose crowning achievement now is suborning perjury in five (5) simultaneously
coached witnesses, beginning two weeks before trial, with further unethical surprise and enormous prejudice.
Judge Miles here, who watched them pad their attorney fees, double bill (Remington) and grossly overstate
their attorney fee hours in 2009, and hence she reduced their fee request by 75%. So about a year ago
when SHE had the opportunity to hear a Summary Judgment motion on a one-time basis, the Mitchell firm
above (Gans and Brisso) immediately had to disqualify her because she was definitely ON to their total
lack of proper attorney ethics.
52
1
130. Defendants deposited hazardous and other very adverse, poisonous, non-native substances
2
and related concrete, rocky and related DEAD materials onto plaintiffs land which was severely
3
injurious to plaintiffs, defendants, all animals and the publics physical and emotional health, and
4
was also offensive to plaintiffs senses. Defendants then BURIED and concealed said hazardous and
5
contaminated, unwanted and NOT REQUESTED OR CONDONED on Remingtons land where they
6 still reside today, unexcavated. said substances also continue to unlawfully leach, ooze and otherwise
7 emit hazardous and toxic chemicals onto and further into plaintiffs soils, farther down the mountain
8 to impact entirely new areas annually, into his formerly entirely pristine watercourse (Remington
9 Creek), formerly inhabited by hundreds of animals, as proven by the continuous array of EMPTY
10 nests and dens in the area. Defendants toxic discharges, deposits and illicit criminal polluting acts
above also have adversely directly affected his redwood forest, all of his plantings North of
11
Remington Creek and many of his property-wide approximately 15,000+ planted major garden
12
plants, bushes and trees, most of which are RARE and ALL are non-native, see PHOTOS #s 61-75.
13
131. After exuding, oozing and otherwise appearing above and below ground, Mathsons asbestos
14
fibers, carcinogenic, unhealthy dusts, dissolved or waterborne unbroken-down fecal bacteria and
15
concentrated and degraded remediated gas station hydrocarbon toxins, all run sharply downhill and
16 directly into the several major springs and continuous seepages directly emanating from Mathsons
17 HILL and lower dump regions.
18 132. Said above toxic water flows emanating from beneath Mathsons dump and actually
19 appearing far downhill IN the toe-of-the-fill, then all flow DIRECTLY and rapidly into said
20 CREEK, and from there quickly into Elk River, Humboldt Bay, the numerous adjacent National
21
Wildlife sanctuaries, wetlands and Endangered Species Preserves and the Pacific Ocean, polluting
all of them, probably irreparably.
22
133. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conduct as stated above, and described in much MORE
23
DETAIL below, affected and continues to affect the community-at-large in that defendant has
24
created a danger to the public and has harmed the surrounding environment by their deposits of
25
hazardous and other adverse substances ON Remingtons land and adjacent to and directly above a
26
known watercourse. Plaintiff has been particularly affected by this nuisance created by defendants,
27 because of the specific above-described continuing injury to his property, and therefore he has
28 standing to bring an action against defendants for public nuisance, and has DONE that.
134. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur many special injuries as a direct and
proximate result of this public nuisance, injuries which the general public has not suffered, and
which are now worsening due to the above-cited disease causes now present and prevalent, plus

53
1
the blocked development of Remington Creeks 50,000,000 gallons per year useful human water
2
consumption potential, BECAUSE it is now contaminated.
3
135. As discussed in FULL detail below, Defendants DUMPING is Harmful to: Remingtons
4
health and all up-wind residents of the Westgate community, Hilma Dr. and related environs, from
5
tiny blowing air-borne asbestos fibers, PAHs and fine asphalt dusts, etc; all users of Californias
6 public sea-level water courses which interface with Elk River, Humboldt Bay, the Pacific Ocean and
7 environs from dissolved water-borne concentrated HCs, lead, toxic metals and epidemiclevel
8 human sewage bacteria, etc, which caused illnesses such as that shown in Photo #32.
9 136. Indecent and Offensive to the Senses, as related to severe toxicity, infectious disease
10 carrying, other invisible to the naked-eye infection and disease-carrying pathogens, ODORS
(especially offensive in a massive rose, flower and fragrant tree blossom garden), and nasty-looking
11
turbidity and discolored waters, as per the several thousand photos in the case since 2008, and to be
12
supplemented.
13
137. An Obstruction to the Free Use of Remingtons Property and the Publics use of its
14
waterways, below Remington Creek, which includes all fisheries, oyster and clam beds, millions of
15
crabs, etc. As complained in the 2014 FAC: 277-289, and above. John Mathsons and RAOs
16 continuous Intimidation and Vandalisms (of Remington, Figas, SHN, etc.) and overall noticeably
17 organized and orchestrated conspiracy to cover-up and keep their serious CRIMES buried and
18 concealed indefinitely were intended to scare Remington away, gradually break his spirit and resolve,
19 but have had the OPPOSITE effect. Simply put, as explained for 10 years, Remington cannot use his
20 property remotely as intended, nor can he sell it to get AWAY from these nasty Mathsons and their
21
pose, at this time and until CLEANED-UP. After that, why would Remington hang-around this
aesthetically unpleasant neighborhood, led by criminals John & Joy Mathson?
22
138. Restitution. As requested in the state successive action case DR140426, RESTITUTION
23
HAS BEEN requested as an alternative to normally calculated damages for all harm proximately
24
caused by defendants, (see Rules 65, 57 and 1).
25
HERE, RAO, the City and Mathson (Randalls role THERE is currently unknown)
26
cumulatively each made profits of several hundred thousand dollars by virtue of their ILLEGAL,
27 criminal activity; and, potentially added-up, defendants illicit gains, profits and benefits would
28 greatly exceed Remingtons total damages, for costs, various injuries, rents and remediation. Thus, at
the end of the process, a jury will be asked to determine which amount is greater and Remington is
entitled to the greater dollar value, as a just process in equity, not as an alternative cause of action, at
least according to the state court in Eureka.
139. A JURY TRIAL is requested for Remingtons said above continuing nuisance & trespass
54
1
action damages, for all his physical injuries, emotional and other damages proximately caused
2
thereby Defendants dumping, burial and continued conspiratorial fraudulent concealment of
3
hazardous materials9, and collusion and cover-ups to support same. Gans and defendants criminal
4
acts and present illegal, desperate COVER-UPS were recently supported at the SOL trial by
5
multiple perjuries by Mr. Gans and his 5, so far, admittedly HEAVILY COACHED and colluding
6 witnesses. Next batter up in this criminal conspiracy and toxic environmental graft case is
7 inferentially the trespassing vandal Morgan Randall, with previous crimes against Remington as
8 described.
9 140. Said above hazardous materials are NOT duplicative of Remingtons state causes of action
10 in two lawsuits since Judge Reinholtsen apparently erroneously granted Collateral Estoppel there,
which was effectively like an illogical, unjust partial STATE Summary Judgment based on no
11
evidence just an apparent misinterpretation of what Magistrate Vadas intended in his Dismissal
12
ORDERS and his nebulous and deceptively long SJ ORDER discussing defendants bogus evidence,
13
which we had fully rebutted, but Remingtons side got ZERO evidence into that federal SJ
14
proceeding. That was because Judge Vadas never permitted Remington to be examined as the expert
15
which he IS and Aveggio was disqualified due to the disclosure errors discussed. Therefore, at this
16 point, Remington has lost two cases by summary judgment without ever being allowed to present one
17 these of evidence, and Remington has conclusive evidence to win this case of allowed to admit it.
18 141. The Magistrate apparently carefully saved and separated Remingtons State causes of
19 action for adjudication in State Superior Court but then Mr. Gans and PLOTZ tricked the Superior
20 Court into a Draconian, crippling and erroneous ruling, based upon Remingtons hundreds of hours of
21
appropriate research, focused on Walter Heisers collateral estoppel treatises and numerous others.
142. Soil Remediation costs as BID by SHN in 2011 for $160,000 are also sought as
22
additional damages, plus all costs and time spent on litigating this simple matter of a neighbor
23
polluting and littering his neighbors land in such a manner as to violate more than 50 California
24
statutes.
25
143. Although technically NOT a California Cause of Action, Remington requests that
26
RESTITUTION be calculated and applied at the end of the fact finding process, and if the
27 PROFITS made by RAO, Mathson, Randall and The City cumulatively exceed the damages
28 9 Said hazardous materials include, without limitation: ASBESTOS, lead, PAHs, Chrysotile,
ecoli and coliform bacteria, carcinogenic dusts of several types, toxic highly concentrated levels of
several metals, benzene vapors, and many hydrocarbons, including deteriorated motor oils,
benzene, gasoline fractions and diesel-like compounds. The above and many MORE adverse and
toxic compounds were placed on Remingtons land and are now and have since at least 2010-16
been migrating, eroding, seeping, exuding and otherwise MOVING lower by gravity forces for
years, especially as they are exposed by erosion and appear near the surface of the ground.
55
1
found by a jury for Remington which is LIKELY, then the higher amount should be paid to
2
Remington, under law. Remington lost rental values and loss of use for the valuable land supporting
3
Mathsons entire backyard, for 18-20 years, which lateral support from Remingtons land provided
4
FREE TO DATE was worth at least $12,000 per year, and the Mathsons would lose about a half
5
acre of their backyard and lawns without it! Thus, $12,000 per year is the substantial sum that must
6 be added to huge expert and litigation monetary costs, emotional and physical injuries plus a costly
7 remediation, however in a FAIR calculation it is likely that RAOs profits alone were in the
8 $500,000 range and benefits to the other defendants were also very substantial, according to proofs
9 at trial.
10
144. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ABATEMENT OF PRIVATE AND
11
PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND DAMAGES THEREFROM.
12
Plaintiff alleges that defendants deliberate, intentional felonious conduct including without
13
limitation: the dumping, disposal, burying and further deliberate fraudulent criminal, conspiratorial
14
CONCEALMENT of contaminated, polluted and hazardous, plus related rocky, toxic, poisonous
15
and/or other UNWANTED non-native substances onto and INTO plaintiffs land, and the resulting
16 miscellaneous movements (under all possible scientific principles and mechanisms) and discharges
17 of dissolved, ionized, precipitated, and other mostly gravity driven forms of migrating toxins, into
18 plaintiffs top soil, ground water and irrigation water as above and herein alleged. The above
19 generally described wrongful acts of remediable continuing trespass onto and into plaintiffs
20 property, have for 18 years interfered with and continue to interfere with plaintiffs right to use and
21
occupy his own property.
145. Abatement here means: Removing, cleaning-up or remediating the nuisance which violates
22
the laws cited, which specifically entails, in part, excavating-out (with a long-reach, large bucket, very
23
heavy-duty, very stable, SAFE excavator) onto trucks the 1.4+ (or probably MORE like 2, as of 12-5-
24
15) million pounds of non-native materials deposited on Remingtons land by defendants, much of it in
25
giant concrete and iron, asbestos and asphalt chunks. If everything is removed from the mountainside
26
and trucked-out then the hazardous materials can be sorted-out on the flats above, in Hazmat suits and
27 respirators and properly handled. Hence EVERYTHING must be removed just to get to the asbestos
28 pipes buried the deepest, plus all contaminated soils, debris and toxic junk need to be removed from
that site. Finally, ALL groundwater flowing underneath Mathsons dump, from Mathsons property, at
the native soils interface must be intercepted by said above perforated pipe inside Mathsons new
retaining wall, from where it flows by gravity either onto Remingtons property, for treatment and
recycling for irrigation, or onto Mathsons, and beyond.
56
1
146. Abatement ALSO means cutting down the leaning trees as topping the Alders is too
2
expensive and likely insufficient. The dangerous leaning trees issue is addressed below.
3
147. Aveggios 2011 RAP set forth our now dated 2011 plan for removing all contaminated
4
soils from Remingtons land and disposing of them at a landfill. His plan was to make a haul road
5
from the South suitable for an 85,000# excavator and a 10-yard dump truck to drive in and out on, and
6 to excavate (wearing respirators) the contaminated debris into 50-60 dump truck loads and haul-it
7 away for proper disposal. All asbestos pipes, friable matting and insulation will have to be specially
8 handled and separated in hazmat suits, masks, plastic bagged and legally hauled by permit to a lawful
9 disposal site.
10 148. In 2012, Remington actually BEGAN the remediations preliminary steps, with Bob Figas
physically removing Remingtons gigantic 80,000# loader from our remediation hauling road and
11
bridge access, so that some filling and smoothing could take place suitable for large dump trucks.
12
Previously Remington had paid about $700 to haul miscellaneous defendants toxic debris to the dump
13
and here Figas was paid $1800+ for what he DID do, but the rest of the access road and removal of
14
other items in the way were never completed because of Skillings Intimidation of Figas (FAC, pages
15
277+, etc), which scared him away as described. Obviously RAO feared wed discover something.
16 Figas panicked departure resulted shortly thereafter in a massive 1000+ cubic foot slide, where a
17 major portion of Remingtons gardens dropped 6 vertical feet, causing $5000 of additional plant
18 damage and other mitigation measures to prevent worse subsidences there. Remington contracted with
19 Mr. Marsh to make n Easterly road in but he got rained-out in early November, 2015, when
20 Remington had to travel and attend to Oregon real estate business anyway.
21
149. Additional water remedial measures now required. Said 2011 SHN RAP was completed
in late June 2011 and was based upon all soil knowledge then available, and was predicated upon the
22
concept that removal of Remingtons contaminated soils, as well as retaining Mathsons and properly
23
draining the area, would mostly resolve the lower water issues, which contaminated magnitude was
24
not fully known in June 2011. Inflation, time and Aveggios death and Fogets transfer have
25
rendered that bid useless so Dr. McEdwards will look at the entire project again focused largely on the
26
water data we now have. $250,000 is Remingtons current best estimate FOR full LONG-TERM SOIL
27 AND WATER REMEDIATION which will be made exact to the dollar by trial.
28
150. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONTINUING TRESPASS,

CACI 2000, FOR YEARS 2013-16+
Plaintiff incorporates each allegation contained in the general allegations above, as
well as the other related, relevant words in the above sections, ALL of the thousands of pages of
57
1
filed and SWORN documents in this case since 2008, and all references to previous SA/SJ
2
Appendices where needed, as if set-out at length here, see various footnotes for detailed references.
3
All allegations contained in all paragraphs of all of these filings in Volumes I and II or all
4
incorporated by reference for each cause of action discussed in this complaint whether its the first
5
preliminary statement thereof or the more final statements which all follow (together) after pages
6 proximately 112-116, as additional edits of all kinds take place.
7 151. Actual, definite damages cannot be specified or even guesstimated until the Court makes
8 its RENZ ruling concerning WHAT years damages are allowed in this Continuing trespass and
9 nuisance case, which damages, as encouraged in the California precedents, could continue until the
10 end of all trials and appeals. That would potentially save an additional 2-4 separate lawsuits which
are inefficient and onerous for all, especially as stigma and future indemnification issues arise.
11
Echoing the wise words of Judge Traynor in Spaulding v. Cameron, Supra potentially that would
12
eliminate the onerous task of Remington having to repetitively sue every three years for his
13
damages, which more humane and just process, Remington would recommend and URGE here.
14
152. Plaintiff alleges that defendants deliberate, intentional felonious conduct including without
15
limitation: the dumping, disposal, burying and further deliberate fraudulent criminal, conspiratorial
16 CONCEALMENT of contaminated, polluted and hazardous, plus related rocky, toxic, poisonous
17 and/or other UNWANTED non-native substances onto and INTO plaintiffs land, and the resulting
18 miscellaneous movements (under all possible scientific principles and mechanisms) and discharges of
19 dissolved, ionized, precipitated, and other mostly gravity driven forms of migrating toxins, into
20 plaintiffs top soil, ground water and irrigation water as above and herein alleged. The above
21
generally described wrongful acts of remediable continuing trespass onto and into plaintiffs property,
have for 18 years interfered with and continue to interfere with plaintiffs right to use and occupy his
22
own property. After heroic attempts to develop and USE said contaminated land, all such attempts
23
have been abandoned. It is fruitless, impossible until removal of about 10 of contaminated rocky,
24
DEAD materials. Said area also gravely threatens Remingtons health and he is afraid to work in or
25
breath air in that vicinity for long, if at all, due to the described physical symptoms and near fatal
26
illnesses contracted as a result of Remingtons last serious contacts with soils, waters, bacteria and
27 asbestos particles in that area between 2013-15. Thus, NONE of said encroached land is now usable
28 or VISITABLE for long, by anyone.
153. Plaintiff alleges that he has been damaged to a degree still presently unknown, pending a
Renz term ruling, as requested now by independent motion, as alleged above, as a result of
Defendants wrongful trespass and interference with plaintiffs rights of private occupancy of his
OWN property.
58
1
154. Plaintiff is informed and therefore believes, and on that basis alleges, that unless
2
admonished and ordered by this court, or related governmental body, defendants will continue to
3
trespass against plaintiffs property indefinitely. Such trespassory conduct by defendants will result
4
and now already HAS RESULTED in irreparable harm to plaintiff, in that plaintiff has become
5
physically weakened, seriously ILL (as explained, photo #32), become accident prone for falls on this
6 dangerous, steep property, and will be restrained from developing his land according to his plans, and
7 the other maladies delineated above. Nothing fruitful or intended now grows, or maybe will ever
8 grow properly in most of that area, even with numerous extraordinary efforts by plaintiff in bringing-
9 in topsoil and subterranean water, which after 10+ years of development has failed in the Mathsons
10 dump areas and adjacent thereto. Defendants toxic wastes will continue (per 2008), and by 2016
HAVE severely continued indefinitely to leach out into Remingtons formerly pristine ephemeral
11
creek and groundwater, used for irrigating 15,000+ major plants and also used fruitfully by the
12
people of California, severely adversely impacting all wetlands below as complained.
13
155. Defendants have egregiously violated all of the basic elements of a trespass, as listed in
14
detail around page 150 under Cause of Action number 14.
15
16 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ABATEMENT OF CONTINUING TRESPASS

17 156. Remington includes all of the above allegations, facts, filed state and 2009-14 federal
18 case source documents and damages by reference, as though fully set-forth here, plus The RICO
19 statement and complaint, all of which relates hereto, and also all other sworn oral and written
20 testimony supports this amendment. HERE in this cause of action, Remington again requests
21
appropriate Court ORDERS and funds from defendants to fully remediate Plaintiffs contaminated
property, deal with the water issues above and compensate Remington for his related damages
22
detailed at the end of this complaint. See especially the above Cause of Action For Remediation of
23
Public and Private Nuisance for additional details of the processes and principles involved in
24
abatement here, especially as based on Aveggios RAP plan plus our additional work since then, all
25
of which applies equally, but not identically obviously, to abatement of the continuing trespass.
26
157. The elements of continuing trespass, damages and factual basis for same are all discussed
27 below in even more evidentiary detail, so defendants STILL know what they will need to defend at
28 trial, which here is also analogous (not identical as the elements and damages change monthly) to
the thousands of pages of cited, related state case documents since 2008-2011.
A. The general facts still apply, especially the sworn ones, however all specific facts, evidence,
assumptions and virtually all case details have evolved and CHANGED naturally in 8 years, as would
be expected in any contentious, complex, dynamic case. In other words, ALL general allegations from
59
1
2008-2016 remain essentially (but not entirely) unchanged, but the emphasis, magnitude, themes and
2
deliberate CRIMINAL greedy unlawful intentions of defendants has shifted and become better
3
understood, however Remingtons investigations are by no means completed. They still evolve and all
4
case knowledge will be deepened by DR140426 Discovery, so far blocked by defendants, and later by
5
this Court.
6 158. Additional MAJOR, multiple deer trespasses through Mathson-cut fence holes continue on
7 February 9-11, 2017, until I can get Dylan Clemans in here to protect Remingtons Valentines Day and
8 birthday gift flowers, now being ravaged, as this is written.
9 159. Abatement or remediation of Defendants trespasses can be accomplished in many ways as
10 above. If a retaining wall is not ordered immediately by this Court independently, then after, or before
in anticipation of, a positive jury verdict, Remington will just START his excavating cleanup. That is
11
already well-planned and started, but got rained-out VERY narrowly in November 2015, so well
12
wait for summer 2017 now to get in there, and start serious excavations10. Likely well just make a
13
vertical excavation at the property line and then see what happens. At that point defendants could
14
erect a retaining wall easily from THEIR side, but if they elect NOT to, then we will still attempt to
15
lay drainage pipe, perhaps pile hazardous debris back up onto Mathsons land as it collapses into our
16 excavation, and eventually be forced to begin a new lawsuit for further continuing trespasses from
17 certain landslides during any hard rain earthquake, unless defendants at some point wish to get into
18 the spirit of this remediation, assist Remington and the community, cleanup contaminated water,
19 cooperate and finalize this.
20 160. Remington will attempt to make a suitable wall, ELIMINATING future landslide issues,
21
part of any jury verdict or Court Injunction in ANY of these cases, but results there are uncertain
today. THIS Court is absolutely necessary to accomplish that result, as these cases stand today.
22
161. State continuing nuisance and trespass complex damages for the years 2013-2016,
23
under CACI 2030 are respectfully requested to be heard and adjudicated HERE. Two other periods
24
are active still today in State Court but getting nowhere at the moment with a trifurcated trial barely
25
begun but with no qualified judge to administer same at present. That may change, but it appears
26
today that the federal system is better staffed and more capable of determining complex contested
27 issues more reasonably and expeditiously, especially where the tricky, unethical, but powerful Eureka
28 10 See SJI #31, 2000-G for additional details about the extreme importance ideally of overall
planning and coordination between the parties and insurance companies before any hazardous debris
is removed and Ms structures above are jeopardized. Conversely, the Mathsons and their attorneys
need to realistically start cooperating because had it not rained one Saturday in early November,
discouraging Remingtons contractor Mr. Marsh from bringing-in his excavator to develop the road
into the landfill as CONTRACTED, wed already be at an entirely different stage of progress with
remediation, and concern and anxiety from the Mathsons, about the next 4 rainfall or 7.3 earthquake.
60
1
Mitchell firm is involved and implicated here in deep unscrupulous and unlawful behavior, with no
2
one in Eureka perhaps willing to stand-up to the mighty, influential Brisso or Gans. BOTH with
3
proven ethical and honesty shortcomings in these cases, especially the LATER, whose crowning
4
achievement now is suborning perjury in five (5) simultaneously coached witnesses, beginning two
5
weeks before trial, with further unethical surprise and enormous prejudice.
6 162. As an alternative calculation to Trespass and/or Nuisance damages, Remington requests
7 that after a trial a detailed restitution calculation is made and then compared to said nuisance/trespass
8 damages and which ever is GREATER can be recovered by Remington.
9
10 SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: UNJUST ENRICHMENT versus RESTITUTION

163. Perhaps not an actual Cause of Action according to State Judge Reinholtsen, but
11
nevertheless an important principle to apply at the appropriate time, after a damages trial and the
12
contamination case.
13
Remington re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every foregoing and
14
subsequent paragraph of this complaint, volumes I & II, as if set forth here in full.
15
164. Unjust Profits v. Damages. Remington requests a Court or jury ORDER requiring
16 defendants to PAY Remington RESTITUTION by disgorging to Remington and/or paying all of
17 defendants cumulative unjust profits and projected high six-figure illicit GAINS to Remington, IF
18 they exceed his compensatory Damages. Although Remington will attempt to learn everything
19 possible from Rich Olson during the 2016 trial, it is anticipated that he will refuse to incriminate
20 himself if possible, and Remington will need to wait for specific document, witness, scientific
21
boring on Mathsons land and accounting discovery when that is re-opened after the 2016 trial.
165. Defendants have sought and still seek to wrongfully obtain many hundreds of
22
thousands of dollars from Remington through their deceptive and fraudulent defensive
23
litigatory tactics since 2007, which Gans and the named defendants herein, have gradually
24
transformed into a full-blown RICO racketeering enterprise.
25
166. Defendants have already been and will continue to be unjustly enriched from any benefits
26
obtained herein, which are continuing and increasing in the various ways described in the below
27 sections, Relief Requested and Specific Environmentally Based Damages For All Causes Of Action
28 Against All Defendant, plus said defendants have already reaped enormous savings from not paying-out
any cleanup or any just damages and costs to Remington to date. At the time of trial, Remington will
want to compare defendants unjust profits against his rightful statutory damages, plus interest and then
make the restitution calculation which will award him the higher of the two amounts.

61
1
167. Perhaps with IRS assistance (See RICO statement), during future discovery, we will accurately
2
reconstruct and account for all Mathsons and RAOs taxable and ACTUAL profits, including an
3
analysis, appraisal of the sequence and development costs of all RAO/Olsons residential RE lots and
4
equipment purchases plus that of their employees and relatives, including the large succession of houses
5
built by his corporation, close together along Walnut Drive, inferentially mostly from said illegal profits.
6 168. All unjust cash profits must be accurately determined, added-up and compared to
7 Remingtons complex and numerous compensatory and punitive damages for the relevant time period,
8 per Renz, which arguably will allow Remington to recover all of his damages in these cases from 2005
9 through 2020, or whenever these cases exhaust all appeals.
10 169. Punitive damages may be awarded here, as a deterrent/punishment to RAO, Mathson,

Nelson, the other named defendants in both parts of this lawsuit, and as a warning specifically to other
11
illegal short-haulers like RAO, which are well-known to be out there, as well as the many other
12
lawbreakers alleged herein with entirely different egregious violations of law. Defendants, and all of
13
their, states of mind, hostility, obvious admissions, cognizance of criminality, intentionality of their
14
torts and cumulative deliberate harms to Remington, the community, the environment and California
15
must ALL be assessed and weighed, and only then can total awarded damages be compared to RAO
16 PLUS Mathsons Very substantial illegal profits. At that time, Remington would have the option to
17 recover the greater of the two above amounts.
18 170. Restitution is an ALTERNATIVE to Compensatory plus punitive damages, which may
19 better fulfill justice in some cases rather than other types of damages, all of which will be up to the jury.
20 171. The Mathsons magically" received the enormous benefit of a FREE $135-200,000
21
landscaping job but are sophisticated enough to understand WHY that ENORMOUS free service
was provided.
22
172. WAS THAT wonderful free GIFT TO THE MATHSONS DECLARED AND TAXED,
23
by any Defendant? The answer there will be explored at the 2016 trial, and MUCH further in this case,
24
which is 99% certain to be NO, based on a solid 10-years of discovery and investigations in these
25
cases.
26
173. Here, defendants torts were statutory, criminal, equitable and common law violations,
27 and their behavior was all entirely deliberate, knowing and calculated over a long period of time.
28 Simply put, ALL the BIG, horrible, most HAZARDOUS, TOXIC crap (literally) was pushed-off the
steep bank onto Remingtons land and into his redwood forest, where it was then clandestinely buried
and then further concealed with brush and weeds. Any property or money that defendants obtained or
obtained in the future from Remington will be and has been acquired as result of defendants tortious,

62
1
illegal and fraudulent conduct as set forth with particularity herein in both volumes of this complaint,
2
and now masterminded exclusively by Gans.
3
174. Unjust Profits of over $500,000. Cumulatively, ALL said Defendants received cash and/or
4
value added remuneration of an estimated $400,000-1,500,000 TOTAL based on Plaintiffs personal
5
expertise for 35+ years in trucking industry estimates and accounting calculations, exactly like these.
6 175. Those UNJUST defendants PROFITS were divided-up in a subjective, nebulous, complex
7 manner: The Mathsons buried and hid the CRIMES and got their coveted $150,000+ of free
8 contaminated fill for more opulent lawns, and RAO got the illicit cash to pay the over $100,000 of
9 known fixed business expenses, for a massive hauling and dumping project lasting many months.
10 176. Complex restitution profits (once they are more accurately calculated during DR140426
Discovery (or at THIS trial), ARE REQUESTED from the trier of fact at a trial, after viewing and
11
understanding: Mathsons and RAOs bank and tax records; accounting profit and loss statements;
12
ALL expenses, sales and income; and having experts carefully study and carefully appraise RAOs
13
(and Olsons) extensive RE developments, and major purchases and/or trades done during and after
14
that period, probably extensively for cash, presumably using their own corporate employee CASH
15
payroll and tax deductions to build Mr. Olsons personal residences, while RAOs depreciated and sold
16 equipment, including for scrap, and did side jobs, ETC.
17 177.Thereafter, Remingtons lawfully deserved general, special and punitive damages can be
18 determined by a jury verdict or other mediated resolution, and lastly compared to the above
19 calculated value of unjust riches, or here to RAOs and Mathsons obvious illicit profits, now well-
20 hidden in source and magnitude]. SEE ALSO PAGES 130-135 FOR MORE SUBSTANTIVE
21
DETAIL ON UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
178. Rule 57 adjudication of Remingtons long-time state negligence (CACI 400-414) and
22
negligence per se (under CACI 418, 9 different California Code violations) claims are requested.
23
179. The states recent 2016 SOL trial attempt was fatally flawed, supported by multiple crucial,
24
material perjured testimonies and had vague, unintelligible and incomplete jury instructions for the
25
severe harm necessary to put a land owner on actual notice of any factor sufficient to warrant actually
26
DOING ANYTHING by the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars of investigatory costs, due to
27 subterranean trespass with no visual manifestations until 2006 excavations occurred.
28 Also, CACI 460 (Strict liability due from residential loader operator) and CACI 462 (strict
liability for damages caused by Mathsons multiple deliberate, wanton, reckless, criminal releases
and actual HERDING of wild animals with known dangerous, destructive, vandalistic propensities
into Remingtons large rare gardens, causing massive damage, over many years). Gans and
Mathson knew precisely what their trained deer herd would ALWAYS do to Remingtons gardens,
63
1
100% of the time, and they were never disappointed. If a criminal trains, programs and points a robot
2
capable of starting a fire into a grassy field, and not unexpectedly and NOT shockingly, a serious
3
destructive fire is started as planned, then the masterminding criminal perpetrators would be culpable
4
for all damages cause thereby.
5
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE
6 180. Defendants 1998 and subsequent negligent conduct violated more than 50 State, County
7 and Federal statutes cited for the last 9 years, well-known to Gans and Plotz, et al, and are not all
8 repetitively repeated here. Some have been dropped as repetitive, extraneous and duplicative so here
9 only some of the more important independently violated ones are cited. If this Court accepts
10 jurisdiction here, there are another 30-40 considered in detail in DR080678 pre-trial hearings, to add
by FAC, especially the Negligence per se statutes, including the various previously cited California
11
Code violations in SJIs #67-76: 1714, 669, 13350, 1602, 25,189, 5411, 2510, 5650,
12
and many sub-sections associated therewith.
13
181. Mathsons above-described serious INTENTIONAL (and possibly partially negligent)
14
encroachments upon Remingtons adjacent property with hazardous asbestos, lead, gas station
15
remediated concentrated HC levels and sewage bacteria, etc was inherently dangerous and
16 unreasonable under the circumstances, violated Title III, A-167 discussed specifically below,
17 which automatically caused damages.
18 182. Defendants, including RAO, Skillings, Olson and all of them, have severely polluted and
19 contaminated plaintiffs property below11., and to the south of defendants permanent lived-in, wired
20 and plumbed travel trailer and backyard over the course of many years This pollution directly violated
21
scores of Humboldt County, California, and Federal dumping, filling, water quality and pollution laws.
183. As a direct and obvious result of defendants placement of toxic materials directly onto
22
Remingtons land and the negligent failures to adhere to ANY one of at least 45 directly relevant
23
County grading directives for a mountain top illegal property grader with respect to his lower,
24
downhill neighbors, not unexpectedly, Wind and water have and are still causing continuing
25
migration and movement of Ms huge volume above of encroaching fill. 550+ cubic yards have
26
ALREADY migrated onto (JA, Deposition #2) Rs land, and more moves lower in any
27 significant rain.
28 184. As above, defendants have illegally and without any permits at all deceitfully, stealthily
and clandestinely dumped hazardous contaminated substances, onto plaintiffs property,
11 See ID, 2014 SJ opposition Appendices, III, per 2016 TRIAL; and also 2014 FAC: 156-174
or SS, ID, for best testing summaries, not required for THIS complaint, but useful for any new
defendants to see the overall BIG-PICTURE pattern, and to better understand the charges
against them which will NEVER be fully or honestly explained to them by Gans, certainly.
64
1
infecting his springs, water supplies, Remington Creek and all his gardens and the surrounding
2
environment.
3
185. Defendants have also illegally expanded their septic system directly above the landfill (on
4
Remingtons land) without any permits, and despite being DENIED a permit by the County. Said
5
Mathsons permit was DENIED because their requested SECOND SEPTIC SYSTEM was far-beyond
6 the capacity of their land to perk, with the resultant pouring of improperly treated sewage and other
7 flushed poisons onto, into and beneath plaintiffs lower property during any significant rain That
8 frequent occurrence results in horrible foul odors, toxic oily, effluent, fecal and soapy films, and other
9 unknown poisons flowing onto Remingtons land.
10 186. Mathsons construction of a large illegal, unpermitted septic system was dangerous,
unreasonable, in bad faith and foreseeably led to the infection of Remington and severe contamination
11
of Remingtons property below.
12
187. This pollution directly contaminates all plaintiffs waters North of the ravine and BEYOND
13
and Mathsons contaminated fecal bacterial outflows of ecoli and coliform have now been
14
smelled, observed and documented for many years, and finally infected Remington in 2015, and
15
polluted the Bay.
16 188. Thus, Mathsons landfill and non-perking sewer systems impacts and impairs Remington
17 Creek, and all in its entire ecosystem below, which is already toxically impaired by ecoli, coliform,
18 sediments, metals from building materials, various lead paints, PAHs, aliphatics, many HCs, heavy
19 metals, PCBs, ETC.
20 189. Defendants illicit dumping and filling, without any engineering, excavation permits, Building
21
Department inspections, supervision or proper responsible safeguards of any kind, (as above)such as
terracing, ditching, limited grades and flow velocities, proper subterranean perforated piping and
22
drains, or strong reinforced concrete waterproof retaining walls, violates without limitation, the
23
Humboldt County Building and filling codes, TITLE III, as cited, the other California laws cited and
24
the common law. Said violations are further subject to fines and removal by several different actively
25
investigating governmental bodies (with MORE presumably to follow), and makes them liable for
26
damages from the multiple adversely affected property owners below, including plaintiff.
27
28 ADJUDICATION OF OTHER RELATED PENDANT STATE CLAIMS, TORTS AND

ASSOCIATED FEDERAL CRIMES REQUESTED, UNDER SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION, 28 USC 1367:
190. Fraudulent Intentional Misrepresentation, CACI 1900,
which Remington relied on, presented with more particularity under Cause of Action #XIII below:
65
1
A. For 8 years Gans and Mathson supposedly FULLY disclosed all their witnesses who had
2
any knowledge of the fill, Remingtons knowledge of it in 1998, or lack thereof, and whether
3
Remington had discovered any of it prior to 2006, and they had ONLY ONE PERSON WHO
4
FALSELY CLAIMED THAT. Kyle Skillings claimed Remington was there asking for fill in 1998
5
when all evidence which he SWORE was in place in 1998, provably was NOT THERE in even
6 2003 or 2004. Hence, Skillings was easily provably WRONG in his sworn testimony about meeting
7 Remington in 1998 and it could not have been until at least 2004 or later, although Remington
8 denies that it ever occurred, even then. At the state trial Remingtons conclusive impeachment
9 photos for Skillings were barred by Judge Reinholtsen, inferring severe bias to Remington, and
10 improper influences from his previous long-time law partners, the opposing attorneys in that SOL
trial. After RELYING on ONLY dealing with Skillings about discovery, Gans suborned
11
PERJURY in John Mathson, Joy Mathson, Joe Costa and Kishpaugh, who ALL suddenly and for
12
the FIRST TIME during opening statements of a jury trial ALL surprised Remington with new,
13
undisclosed, fabricated false crucial testimony, which was supposed to have been disclosed
14
earlier, although FALSE at any time, but was NOT, because it did not even exist until Gans saw in
15
pretrial hearings that Remington could fully knock-out Skillings.
16 B. Mathsons experts saw and counted over 20 asbestos pipes and saw them still buried 10 in
17 the ground but then at federal summary judgment swore there was only ONE, which maybe was not
18 even asbestos!
19 C. Defendants experts also FALSELY swore that Mathsons twin 6 drain pipes were
20 perforated, however they are actually solid, we eventually learned and discovered about two years
21
later after relying on their experts veracity for over two years, and until it was TOO late to
investigate and discover the TRUTH because discovery had closed. Now, Remingtons main expert
22
is dead and his opportunity to study the pipes is past, so his testimony is now prejudiced and never
23
can be rendered entirely accurate as to said twin pipes, requiring another 1-2000 dollar expenditure
24
to get a new expert familiar with the issue. This twin pipes perjury issue is important in these cases
25
D. John Aveggio studied, testified and revealed only 5 days before discovery closed on July 6
26
2011 that ALL of Blue Rocks Environmental tests were fatally flawed by being unacceptably
27 OUT-OF-TIME. We had relied upon those tests for 2-3 years at that point and were prejudiced by
28 their fraudulent, material scientific misrepresentation. All of our testing and testimony was affected
by that misrepresentation and can now never be fully remedied since our primary expert is dead
now, and can never modify his testimony to fit the actual known facts today.
E. Defendants experts have also entirely, fraudulently and knowingly misrepresented the
material fill VOLUME by intentionally using depth numbers and all parameters which were
66
1
obviously wrong, false and they KNEW that or should have known if they are in fact experts.
2
Several hundred hours have been wasted proving that defendants fraudulent estimates are in fact
3
wrong, HOW they are wrong and by HOW much.
4
F. Also, Mathson and his witnesses at the SOL trial swore that the fill material was totally
5
benign and devoid of any toxins or adverse materials. That was a departure from their previous
6 testimony and we had come to rely on some semblance of veracity from Mathson, Gans, Ferriman
7 and Pulley, but got nothing honest and more self-serving misrepresentations from them on all
8 subjects.
9 191. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, CACI 1901.
10 Organized conspiratorial collusion. Defendants, and ALL of their, basic crimes were
illegal, organized crime-like hauling of highly illicit and DANGEROUS substances, dumping and
11
grading them, sorting the WORST toxins and placing them on Remingtons land, then BURYING
12
them there under dirt, gravel and more benign debris and finally TOTALLY CONCEALING THEM
13
ONE STEP FURTHER with large redwood stumps, logs, heavy branches (up to 500 pounds each)
14
and the aggressive ground covers, from blackberries to Ivy all fertilized and watered for near instant
15
concealment of the ground and anything protruding from it.
16 192. Specific allegations. Today, Defendants continue with concealment activities intended to
17 break Remingtons resolve, increase expert and time costs and DELAY these cases endlessly until
18 the parties die or run-out of energy and resources, specifically involving:
19 A. Defendants materially understate all parameters and qualities of the fill and falsely SWEAR
20 to it: They misstate its known proven TOXICITY, lateral extent and depth to reach a false
21
minimalist VOLUME and thus a lesser nuisance and damage factor. For example the asbestos
danger and menace is grossly understated by a factor of about 98% and when serious hydrocarbon
22
reservoirs and flumes are discovered, sampled, tested and recorded below the dump, Gans just
23
blames them on Remingtons activity from 200 yards away, far DOWN across a deep ravine,
24
creek and then 50 back up another mountain;
25
B. Vandalism, trespass and treble damages destruction of timber. Defendants, and all of them,
26
especially Randal and John Mathson, have periodically, consistently and persistently VANDALIZED
27 Remingtons land in the many ways described below and throughout the complaints and documents
28 of the last 8 years, involving fence vandalisms and treble damages trespass to timber, theft, littering
and disposal of personal garbage on Remingtons land and related torts;
C. Spoliation of evidence by Mathson and Randall have been complained of for years and has
resulted in a total alteration visually of the above-ground appearance of the dump, and also physical

67
1
defacement of Remingtons Alder trees South of the Creek, surface damages to the ground there and
2
major erosion, and landslides in that area where Alders were illicitly cut, destroyed and then stolen;
3
D. Collusion and conspiracy among all of the active current defendants (excluding the City) has
4
occurred repetitively and continuously through 2016, including perjury in the 2016 SOL trial and
5
anticipated additional perjury in the NEXT state trials, where essentially Defendants essential
6 defense is that Remington caused all damages to BOTH properties, even though that would be
7 impossible without any machine access to the MILLIONS of pounds of toxic, hazardous and
8 adverse substances now on Mathsons land but more importantly are STILL on Remingtons land
9 which is ALL this suit is about. Despite scientific impossibility, the named defendants are all
10 prepared and coached to LIE in any way deemed useful to Gans constantly varying defense.
E. OTHER concealment activities have been fully documented for 8 years. Some overlap with
11
complaints below, addressed under CCP 128.6 allegations, which involve at least 30 overlapping
12
unethical, sanctionable complaints, itemized previously, elsewhere, including RICO statement
13
pages 685-722, and also 10-94 to a lesser extent;
14
F. Mathson (and Randall in a different area) buried their hazardous wastes, then covered them
15
with miscellaneous redwood based material and then weeds and ground covers, specifically
16 imported, watered and tended in order to insure rapid growth. John Mathson agreed around 2003-5
17 to move his stored materials, scrap iron, mill carts, lumber and sawed to length firewood from the
18 region of the property line across the main dump area, and he did move about 85% of them which
19 were not buried in blackberries. THAT carefully stored material, moved when requested plus the
20 blackberries and related weeds and plantings effectively BLOCKED all visual access to the ground,
21
so that it was not possible to see anything partially submerged at ground level, such as 6 of
15,000# concrete blocks eventually revealed after ALL surface debris was cleared and after paths
22
and planting holes were excavated to reveal the actual size of buried debris, with only about 50 #
23
(of the 2-20,000) exposed, such that more excavations were required to show the actual size and
24
objectionability of many dumped and buried objects.
25
193. MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO OTHERS.
26
Gans especially, as the RICO organized-crime ring-leader, has misrepresented most material
27 case facts to all Courts, experts, witnesses and recently a JURY, in all state and federal forums, for 8
28 years, which deceit and corruption continues in very high gear in mid-February 2017.
194. At the SOL trial he tricked Remington with surprise collusive perjured testimony,
deliberately undisclosed in numerous appropriate pre-trial forums, because the testimony was not
concocted and coached to John and Joy Mathson, Costa, Jon Kishpaugh, Skillings and Randall until
only a week before trial. Remingtons vehement sound objections, evidence and impeachment
68
1
proofs (of Gans prejudice by OMISSION, where he swore to the evidence he had for MANY years
2
but then fabricated irrefutable gang-false testimony, and the court strangely and detrimentally
3
allowed it all in without comment, in July 2016. Now that Remington understands Gans
4
desperation and array of perjuring witnesses to use on any issue, he has had to modify his cross-
5
examination tactics, plan more depositions to solidify the perjury earlier and also use co-counsel in
6 strategic places, where it is simply Remingtons word against 5 perjurers. However, as discussed
7 throughout these documents, those five (5), and soon MANY more perjurers now must keep track
8 of and MEMORIZE their perjury and be consistent with each other over many YEARS, and try and
9 recall what weird crap that Gans taught them to say years before; and, given the competency and
10 general mentality of Gans perjurers, Remington questions how long they will be able to avoid
federal perjury charges. They are well paid and therefore will-motivated to do their best and
11
practice with Gans frequently, but eventually one or more of them is going to break until the truth
12
either on purpose or by accident. Said coached perjurers can now be appropriately handled and
13
questioned going forward. Now that the shock of their collusive perjury has been coped with we
14
will deal with their beyond suspicious and super self-servingly supposedly recalling of all details
15
of meaningless encounters from 20 years ago. In August 2016, five of those perjurers recalled all
16 details, from whether the sun was out to whether Remington got there by foot, car or truck, just like
17 it was yesterday! Naturally, they actually heard nothing, since all of those recollections were
18 fictional anyway, and said perjurers just purportedly saw various incriminating conversations
19 take place, between John Mathson and Remington. But, since none of this actually happened,
20 Remington and his smarter and calmer counsel can now handle all this, when anticipated in
21
advance. Nor is to sullen and bumbling John Mathson likely to be so readily believed, especially
since he unconsciously wants to tell the truth when he gets tired, which does not take very long.
22
With a more sophisticated, educated big city jury, they are going to notice his deceptions, especially
23
when alerted to that fact in Voir Dire, that he relates all minor details quite differently in every
24
repetitive telling. Multiple repetitive retellings will now be repetitively required in all forums,
25
specially depositions, until federal imprisonable perjury and obstruction of justice have been and
26
inevitably will be committed.
27
28 195. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, CACI 3600.

A. ALL named defendants, plus the perjurers at the SOL trial have been collusively coached
by ring-master Gans to swear falsely to various wrongful acts by Remington or to events which just
NEVER OCCURRED, such as the TWO phantom (NON) visits to Mathsons DUMP, while it was
purportedly in progress in 1998; when, the truth is NO visits to Mathsons were made then and
69
1
Remington never even visited Mathsons property at all for any reason until MUCH later, in 2003-6
2
for various specific reasons beyond the scope here.
3
B. ALL of the named defendants committed SPECIFIC, repetitive wrongful acts against
4
Remington which is why they are specifically named here. OTHER perjurers in the SOL trial, Costa
5
and Kishpaugh are NOT named here but perhaps should be, however THEIR fabricated, fictionally
6 written by Gans scripts is perhaps not actionable under these basic causes of action, but IF we can
7 prove the lies eventually perhaps recourse can be sought. However, Gans has lied, deceived and
8 committed so many criminal acts with John Mathson here, that we will focus THERE
9 and prove FRAUD, perjury, 128.6 violations, etc against Gans first, John Mathson second (as he is
10 only the dummy to ventriloquist GANS, as per 2016 SOL trial), and then go from there.
C. Gans master plan now is simple: BREAK Remington completely, force him take nothing,
11
PLUS pay all defendants costs and for removal of all Mathsons, et al hazardous debris, for the
12
insult of challenging Gans and Allieds false, criminal authority.
13
Gans and Allied knew they were WRONG and offered settlement in 2011, but retracted it after
14
Remingtons previous Federal disclosure errors. THAT gave Gans and defendants the idea and
15
motivation to forget what is right and probably inevitable, and try for complete VICTORY.
16 D. Defendants attorneys and financiers KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT HERE, BUT now are
17 doubling down on the opposite: fraud, deceit, corruption, collusive conspiracy, criminality, multiple
18 orchestrated PERJURIES (too many to properly manage we believe), as described in these
19 sections. Defendants minions and foot-soldiers, from Skillings, Randall and Joy Mathson to
20 Ferriman and Gwinn (Pulley was straight so far in 2016) do not seem to care a bit for what is
21
right or for cleaning-up any pollution or creek, etc. Gans witnesses only want to win, be paid and
help the team, as they are led through hell and eternal damnation by Gans, as he apparently
22
(obviously) is quite convincing and charismatic to a certain uneducated Eurekan mentality, as per
23
many local jurors and ALL currently named defendants, excluding the city again in that generality.
24
In other words, Gans is a formidable corrupt adversary like Doyles Moriarty, but now that
25
his methods and ruthless and unexpected criminal activities are now quite well understood, they can
26
be stopped, especially with some assistance from skilled trial counsel and the criminal authorities,
27 either state or preferably federal.
28 E. In Summary: Gans and Allied, et als plan and goal now is very simple: CRUSH
REMINGTON COMPLETELY, AND UNTIL HE DIES OR BECOMES INCAPACITATED,
FURTHER, Plus the other detail objectives explained in the RICO statement. One of which is to
MAKE Remington keep all defendants toxins (and/or damages caused by them, including those by
Kishpaugh and Randall) and like it. A prison homosexual RAPE is an excellent analogy for what
70
1
Gans and his perjurers unexpectedly perpetrated upon Remington in August 2016, with total
2
surprise, prejudice and inconsistent 2011 special interrogatories, which the court would not allow in
3
the evidence. While Remington was conscientiously and honestly explaining in detail from his
4
exhaustive records, what the real facts were back in 1998-2006, Gans wrote an entirely false and
5
surprise script, none of which had ever been revealed in any particular for eight years, despite his
6 lawful and ethical discovery disclosure requirements, and then he got his five main soldiers to
7 convincingly perjure themselves.
8 196. PERJURY is their essential tool there, and fabricating testimony, SUBORNING
9 systematic, well-coached PERJURY, and criminal syndicate-like COLLUSION towards criminal
10 goals, is their final objective. It is now clear that that is now Gans plan to use, as and when needed
without regard to what witnesses and specific testimony from same was previously disclosed in
11
2008-11. Judge Reinholtsen permitted that in summer 2016 and that was unacceptable, unjust and
12
will be appealed.
13
197. ON-Going criminal Conspiracy, CACI 3601.
14
As above, Remington argues that defendants and all those specifically named herein, in
15
BOTH Sides of this lawsuit, as summarized in Volume I and II, actively and continuing TODAY, in
16 September 2016 when this was initially drafted, and NOW moving forward into 2017, collusively
17 conspiring to lie, deceive, misstate and misrepresent as needed in all forums. When the statute of
18 limitations was at issue defendants lied about that, as explained above. In the next trial regarding
19 the extent of defendants contamination of Remingtons land and whether it is reasonable to remove
20 it or not under the law, Defendants already perjuring experts will materially lie about that on the
21
witness stand. Defendants have admitted that they contaminated Remingtons land, so eventually if
Remington persists here, he expects to require defendants to clean up his property and also
22
reimburse him for his other damages done thereto, as determined for this last 3 year period, 2013-
23
16, at a minimum, exclusive of Renz damages. Remingtons damage now includes, but is not
24
limited to: All of the contamination damages from the initial and continuing encroachment
25
with contaminated and other non-native materials, all other damages which are described in
26
the last 15 pages of this complaint, plus the major landslide and huge garden damages incurred by
27 Remington, occurring where Randall illicitly and without permission removed more than a dozen
28 Alders, which were blocking his view, from his rented home across the street. Nothing ever grew
back there and over time that bank eroded and became entirely destabilized and dropped 7 vertical
feet according to proofs. Randall also stole the firewood and deposited personal debris in the area
just now becoming discovered as a result of the slide, all as explained more fully in the RICO
statement.
71
1
198. As explained above, below and in the RICO statement at 5 (d), Defendants stated and/or
2
thinly disguised goal now is to defraud Remington out of his just damages for 10-years of detriment
3
and climbing, and to make him pay to remove defendants hazardous contamination, including
4
without restriction, the minimum of 15,000# of asbestos and Chrysotile needing to be individually
5
gathered and double bagged with masks and hazmat suits, and the concentrated hydrocarbon
6 residues from several gas station remediations along Broadway, plus pay all of defendants litigation
7 costs and bogus malicious prosecution punitive damages, etc! Finally, all relevant and appropriate
8 fraud allegations from throughout this complaint and from the RICO statement are all incorporated
9 into this section by reference as though fully set forth here.
10
199. Frauds of Aiding and Abetting, CACI 3610.
11
As fully explained above, below, and BEST, and with the most particularity in the RICO
12
statement, all elements of that fraud are easily met here in Gans masterminded unethical RICO
13
racketeering enterprises plan to ruin Remington and make him pay for ALL defendants defense
14
costs PLUS removal of their pollutants and hazardous materials deposited on and buried 10-20
15
deep on his redwooded property. Like a criminal enterprise under the RICO act, as fully alleged
16 separately in Volume II, and BETTER in the 738 page RICO Statement in several other
17 volumes, Defendants DID systematically plan, coordinate, and unlawfully coach and REHEARSE
18 perjured testimony towards the common financial goal of defrauding and ruining Remington as per
19 the RICO statement. GansADMITTED COACHING and teaching the truth to his witnesses was
20 improper in state court, but will be an imprisonable offense what it is repeated in federal discovery
21
proceedings. The beauty of RICO is that now Gans said perjury and obstruction of justice
must now be repeated here to be consistent, plus we also have a full, comprehensive and detailed
22
admission of exactly what Gans did from the transcription of his 2016 Voir Dire, where he
23
repeatedly asked each individual jurors permission to do these exact illicit acts just described
24
in detail here.
25
200. Felony vandalism and trespass, PC 594;
26
plus, VANDALISM caused by Mathsons well-trained, led and HERDED animals with well-
27 known dangerous propensities, forced, trained and/or strongly encouraged to go through holes in
28 Remington security fence which Mathson cut, in order to ravage Remingtons 5000+ roses and
other rare species in his gardens, see also CACI 464, for the special instruction written by Plaintiff
for he 2016 state contamination trial, not yet held.
A. See also below and extensive discussions of this issue in the 2014-15 state FAC and TAC,
paraphrased briefly herein. Also relevant are Randalls related vandalism, destruction and theft of
72
1
timber without permission while Remington was out-of-town, and which still causes serious
2
damages today, as does his deposited debris and continued conspiracy and retaliatory collusion with
3
Gans and Mathson. As explained in the RICO statement, much greater and catastrophic damages
4
are still possible from the upper slide begun by Randall which is only about 60 feet from the
5
structure itself which weighs many millions of pounds.
6 201. In August-September 2016, John Mathson, Gans and Miller Farms prematurely jumped-
7 the-gun on the Farmers-Harvey Roberts fence settlement by running a rope across the Pulley
8 line stakes and excavating a deep mattock-trench along that lien for unknown reasons. They also let
9 in multiple deer and caused considerable overall damage to Remingtons gardens. However, in view
10 of the schedules of the various lawsuits, it now appears that the REAL damage here will occur this
winter when torrential rains on these 60 degree slopes will cause erosion and new slides now, which
11
if so will be photographed and documented properly.
12
13
202. Intentional Evidence Spoliation Tort,
14
See Cedars v. SC (1988) 18 C4th 1, 17 for law changes, however. Substantial material
15
evidence has been spoiled, removed, sanitized, covered-up and buried deeper over the past 8
16 years of litigation. Happily WHAT specifically was removed, where, when and even HOW can all
17 be proven with the thousand plus annual still photos of the dump sites plus the many hours of
18 surveillance video showing Gans and Mathsons frequent forays into the dump to GET and remove
19 incriminating objects such as most asbestos pipes, either removed or covered with dirt, redwood
20 needles and/or planted weeds.
21
203. At the proper time after the appropriate evidentiary PROOFS which we have available
for trials or Judge review, we will request appropriate severe terminal evidentiary and/or Discovery
22
sanctions, including fully admitted liability and Court or trier of fact acceptance of 100% of our
23
claims, evidence and computations regarding the amount of hazardous asbestos and Chrysotile
24
which was there initially and STILL is there absent the 700-1000# removed by John Mathson and
25
others by hand.
26
204. SEVERE SANCTIONABLE DELIBERATE ETHICS VIOLATIONS HERE BY GANS
27 AND CONDONED AND NOT OBJECTED TO BY PLOTZ OR BRISSO, FOR MANY YEARS,
28 CCP 128.6.
Serious, and disbarring level type CCP 128.6 sanctions are requested against ALL Defendants
presently active counsel for multiple Federal ethics violations, which overlap with their State
violations in most cases, and include Gans blatant, fraudulent plagiarism of Judge Vadas Document
#93 Summary Judgment ORDER, by multiple deliberate exaggerated misquotations cleverly worded
73
1
and intended to KILL Remingtons State causes, by mis-stating the specific findings (if any) made by
2
Judge Vadas in his dismissal of Remingtons CWA, RCRA, EPCRA and CERCLA allegations.
3
Obviously, no federal allegations were provable without any expert testimony allowed, and without
4
Remington ever being examined as an expert, which he also WAS and still IS (but Judge Vadas did not
5
recognize Remington as expert in anything).
6 205. Gans has lied repeatedly in all Courts and sworn documents, but now his crowning pre-
7 eminent achievement to date is his collusion to suborn systematic supporting, coached perjury in All
8 5 of his 2016 SOL trial witnesses, led by John Mathson and with Joy Mathson held in reserve. John
9 Mathson was the only primary speaking liar about substance, as all the others only swore (to the
10 existence of two phantom NON-EXISTENT MEETINGS) that they saw Mathson talking to
Remington on Mathsons land in 1998, but did not hear any actual WORDS or meanings. The factual
11
truth is that Remington never visited Mathsons land until at least 2004. That is a hard negative to
12
prove 18 years later, however with a lot of perseverance and work we expect to do exactly that. Happily
13
Remington has thousands of pages of related notes, which have barely begun to be reviewed, but
14
unfortunately NONE REPORT ACTIVITIES WHICH DID NOT OCCUR IN 1998. What work was
15
actually done then, and important people that were talked to, IS recorded quite thoroughly in those
16 exact weeks in 1998. However, no one on earth, including Remington, records all of the infinite things
17 which he mightve done on a given day, but did not.
18 206. Although, not CRUCIAL going forward, Gans coaching his witnesses into that perjury was
19 so exceptionally dishonest that Remington now intends to determinatively pursue that issue until
20 resolution, based on sophisticated impeachment by omission techniques being learned and applied by
21
himself or experienced trial counsel next time.
A. At the SOL trial, Remington weakened that block of 5 perjuries substantially but in the
22
surprising moment could not present it clearly, impressively, properly and persuasively to a rather
23
stupid jury, already turned-off by many pro per trial errors and bumblings, unfortunately. Prejudicial
24
evidentiary trial judge decisions were the key flaw making it impossible to even impeach Skillings
25
who is really EASY, with all evidence admitted.
26
207. See also RICO statement, #54, about page 720 for a detailed description of the crucially
27 important February 17, 2017 SOL trial hearing, where Gans again outdid himself, or at least
28 equaled his most deceptive and false legal presentation ever when taken in combination with his
deceptive pre-and post trial briefs. Gans made 10 minutes of 90% corrupt, knowingly and provably
false and deceptive arguments and miscitations of the controlling California contamination law and
among other things lied that: 1) Remington had duly elected under Mangini, Baker, et al to pursue
permanent nuisance and trespass, when the truth is exactly the opposite; In fact, all of Gans oral
74
1
statements and August 2016 post-trial mail fraud representations were knowingly false when made
2
because he contradicted himself many times in is several own pre-trial briefs and related statements,
3
wherein when it suited his fraudulent conspiratorial purpose, he stated the truth that Remington had
4
actually elected continuing nuisance/trespass, and since 2011. Altogether, Remington documented
5
on the February 17, 2017 stenographic record, at least ten (10) major materially FALSE and
6 significant corrupt arguments made by Gans at that hearing, including: His oral denial and
7 repudiation of the California fact that determining whether a nuisance trespass is continuing or
8 permanent is a question of fact for the jury, not the court and especially obviously not for a
9 different jury in the August 2016 trial, that was impaneled to make a statute of limitations
10 determination only. Further, Gans knows that Mangini II, et al, plus ALL related governing
California law dictates and absolutely provides that Remington had and still has the right to amend
11
his pleadings to reflect the facts of the continuing nuisance/trespass and to eliminate the confusing
12
alternative permanent nuisance facts, drafted nine years before, for any discovery. Those lawfully
13
presented alternative arguments for possible permanent nuisance/trespass were disavowed by
14
Remington and eliminated nine years ago, however they still form the entire foundation of Gans
15
deceitful defensive arguments. Remington has refuted Gans corrupt and improper arguments for
16 more than eight years, however very unfortunately, judge Reinholtsen bought into Gans fraud and
17 deceptions about a year ago and does not appear likely to change his mind just because of a few
18 absolutely conclusively determinative Supreme Court decisions. Also as alleged in the RICO
19 statement, the fact that Judge Reinholtsen is inferred to be either a member of the RICO enterprise,
20 and invited future member, or a duped and deceived RICO sympathizer, that has to play into the
21
courts future decision, which is likely to follow Gans and not Remington and the California
Supreme Courts controlling decisions.
22
208. Defendants, and ALL of them, violated California Business and Professions Code
23
sections 17200-17594, as described below. Simply put here, per Rule 8 (a) (2) and (d) (10, (2)
24
and (3):
25
Since 1998 and escalating recently defendants, led by their RICO godfather, Russ Gans, has
26
continuously committed an uninterrupted series of unfair, unconscionable, deceptive and illegal
27 criminal acts against Bruce and Suzanne Remington and the Burl Tree with the fully intended
28 and SPECIFICALLY STATED deliberate malicious purpose of driving them away from this Westgate
neighborhood, so defendants debris which supports Mathsons entire property and all structures, can
remain unlawfully in place as it remains today.
209. ALL named defendants, and especially RAO, Mathson and the City of Eureka have
unlawfully and fraudulently hauled-in, dumped, spread, leveled, graded and then BURIED ON
75
1
REMINGTON'S LANDS enormous amounts (of at least 600-1000 cubic yards) of adverse toxic,
2
hazardous and controlled materials to make unjust, excessive PROFITS. This was a criminal for-
3
profit scheme, described throughout, no more legal than robbing a bank, just more creative, harder to
4
detect and not as easily prosecuted.
5
210. In those related illegal schemes spread over more than 18 years now, defendants
6 committed UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT (with no or) business
7 ACTS and repeated them repetitively to make them business, for-profit PRACTICES within the
8 meaning of California B & PC 17,200, et seq.
9 211. Tortious and Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, CACI 2201,
10 against Jeff Nelson, and any other RICO Enterprise Associates that are proven to be involved in the
11
SHN-Remington contract breach, during federal RICO discovery, who could then be added as direct
defendants to this portion of the complaint at the time of the FAC. Prominent possible suspects at this
12
point which we will be investigating with relation to this issue, would be Ferriman, Gwinn, Hillyard,
13
Foget, Gans and all of the lower level scientific field boring technicians named herein.
14
212. Jeff Nelson egregiously and intentionally interfered with the 2011 contract between SHN,
15
Aveggio, Foget and Remington. SHN and their attorneys have the contract and are very familiar with
16
all details surrounding and dates of the breach, including the blatant lack of any valid reasons from
17 Nelson whatsoever, for said breach, so far in the record, which direct record to date comprises more
18 than 2000 pages, including Aveggios, Remingtons and Fogets files12. Specifically:
19 213. A short, cursory, inadequate and incomplete written contract dated January 17, 2011 exists
20 between Remington and SHNs principal environmental expert at that time, John Aveggio. Said
21
contract was substantially augmented and fully estopped as to its meaning by a lengthy, clear, obvious
and thoroughly documented course of conduct between SHN and Remington, comprising at least one
22
year of verbal conversations, unambiguous and entirely conclusive understandings, written documents
23
and memoranda with unmistakable implications and obvious meetings of all minds involved,
24
numerous additional prior communications, investigations and agreements which occurred prior to
25
the contract being signed, which was why Aveggios abbreviated, simplistic written contract did not
26
need any complex detail.
27
28
12. A summary of the RICO allegations against Jeff Nelson are described with great particularity in
Volume II of this complaint, especially at RICO statement pages 187-205, which are hereby
incorporated herein by reference. Nelson was and still IS reportedly under the influence of the RICO
enterprise, but irrespective of it, with regards to this pendant state allegation, Nelson corruptly,
wrongfully and tortiously breached SHNs litigation services contract with Remington, as described.
If implicated under the RICO causes of action then treble damages would be reasonably recoverable.
76
1
214. By, and actually long before January 2011, Remington and SHN had a long, well-known
2
and very obvious written course of conduct, aimed at SHNs continued gathering of defensible
3
scientific and information so that we could prevail at a jury trial, or hopefully settle earlier as
4
originally occurred in August 2011 after Aveggios final testing.
5
215. A very clear, trackable series of dozens of agreements, notes, letters, emails and other
6 clear understandings over at least seven (7) months exist between Remington and SHN, which
7 were never written into the short, simple contract between two friends, which included without
8 limitation: Consulting services as needed with respect to how to conduct the litigation; numerous site
9 investigations which included volume computations and assessments, analysis of what contaminated
10 materials existed on the sites and where and from what source; Numerous anecdotal, visual and odor
studies of the entire area; scientific site analysis of where to test, what the test for and why; Three
11
different sets of actual scientific borings, water tests and/or other testing types of tests, including the
12
2010 asbestos tests; Numerous pretrial documents including multiple drafts of every declaration, letter
13
to investigative bodies, to defendants and extensive preparations for two lengthy comprehensive
14
depositions, both of which were almost impossible to schedule and required dozens of hours of
15
consultations and communications to set-up.
16 216. Putting-in the 5-10 pages of meticulous detail regarding Remingtons expectations with
17 regard to Aveggios trial testimony in preparation would have been an insult back in 2010-11, when
18 Aveggio was planning and running Remingtons entire trial strategy, which was what he was hired to
19 do, and because we trusted each other implicitly and did not need to make a lot of promises and
20 representations about what we knew was the battle plan13. Aveggio had been to contamination trials
21
and pretrial depositions and related procedures, whereas Remington had more limited experience, and
hence relied entirely on SHNs plans for gathering and presenting all of our trial evidence. Nothing
22
that Aveggio and Remington ever did was not directly related to going to trial, presenting evidence
23
of his testing and philosophy at trial, and first getting to trial by agreeing to tests, well-prepared
24
depositions, declarations, which are required under California law, before you can testify at trial, with
25
several summary judgment motion declarations and numerous related memoranda thrown in
26
217. Note as to contents and format below: This VOLUME I complaint concludes with: 19.
27 CONCLUSIONS; 20. OTHER RELIEF AND DAMAGES REQUESTED; 21. Specific Damages
28 against all defendants for all causes of action.
13.Very obviously when a litigation expert is hired to plan and develop trial strategy it is no different than
when two armies face each other on a battlefield. A written contract is not needed from each soldier to
know that the agreement is to fight until the battle is over at a minimum and preferably until the entire war
is over. In wartime, not dissimilar from these ten-year litigations, the price of fleeing the battlefield,
desertion or deciding you just dont want to fight in the middle of a battle, would normally be punishable
as treason by execution, in many if not most scenarios. That is a good analogy, even if not perfect.
77
1
VOLUME II CONSISTS OF: 22. CIVIL RICO ACT VIOLATIONS BY ALL NAMED
2
DEFENDANTS AND BEYOND, 18 USC 1961-64, et seq. 1962 (c); 23. CIVIL RICO ACT
3
VIOLATIONS BY ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS AND BEYOND, 18 USC 1962 d); 24.
4
Prayer for Specific Relief under RICO, AND A 738 PAGE RICO STATEMENT, AS ITS
5
FOUNDATION.
6
7 VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS

8 General Allegations
9 218. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times defendants, John
10 and Joy Mathson, were owners, occupants and in full possession and control of the real property
adjacent to, and sharing a 300+ foot boundary with, plaintiffs parcels. Their residential redwood-
11
studded property consists of a sprawling, expanded residence, enormous garage, lived-in travel trailer,
12
several sheds, many fences and lawns and is located at 778 Westgate Drive, Eureka, California,
13
adjacent to and north of plaintiffs property.
14
219. As described in more detail in the Notice letter and below in this complaint, in various
15
unknown years prior to 2003, but now believed likely to have been predominantly in 1998-2001,
16 the Mathsons completed major expensive remodeling and expansions of their residence and yard,
17 built out-buildings and greatly expanded their large fenced-in lawn areas. WHERE the money to
18 do all that needs to be determined as RAO may have paid them $20-30,000 for their risk, exposure
19 and for the massive benefit gained in their illegal short-hauling organized, criminal enterprise.
20 220. Unnoticed by plaintiff, Mathson in collusion with and with valuable help from ALL of
21
the defendants, brought in scores of large dump truck loads of miscellaneous NON-NATIVE,
unwanted, environmentally toxic, hazardous and generally harmful to Remington and his property,
22
polluted fill-materials, as described below and elsewhere. Those adverse materials were profitably
23
imported by defendants, dumped in Mathsons backyard and then meticulously sorted, pushed and
24
placed, mostly by Olson and Kyle Skillings onto various parts of Mathsons and Remingtons land,
25
and then all very cleverly, clandestinely, secretly and carefully buried and further obscured from
26
visibility by anyone, and then finally concealed with lavish garden and lawn plantings, and related
27 weeds and piles of organic debris on Remingtons land. Randalls role on defendants for-profit
28 hazardous wastes dumps in 1998 is presently unknown but hisCriminal activities during the 1990s
extensive cover-ups and his present involvement in and aid in Gans RICO conspiracy today, in
2016-17 incriminates him and infers knowledge and material assistance, dating back into at least
the late 1990s.

78
1
221. Plaintiff does not and has never fully resided on his 832 Westgate Drive property, was
2
rarely there during daylight before 2000, and Mathsons projects were entirely screened from
3
plaintiffs view and were almost entirely unknown to him until about 2002, when he first noticed
4
that Mathson had built an enormous garage able to house, service and dismantle about eight (8)
5
cars, a few riding lawnmowers, and house numerous obnoxiously yapping dogs. However,
6 Remington does spend an average of ten (10) hours per day there and sleeps there 30-70 times per
7 year, typically.
8 222. It now is apparent that Mathson and RAO clandestinely appropriated about 1/3 acre
9 more of Remingtons land, while adding at least that much more to his own mountaintop flat
10 lawns, than if he had kept all materials on his property, see photos #46-48, ETC.). See e.g.
PHOTO #6 for example of surface debris deposited by defendants on Remingtons land which
11
were concealed by piles of BRUSH, etc. (SEE PHOTOS # 15, 17, 27-29) until Remingtons
12
massive, difficult and dangerous burning and brush-clearing done in 2005-2008, see photo #41, in
13
order to develop that central area as part of his gardens, which also happens to be where
14
Remingtons most important and central extensive irrigation and water storage tanks are located.
15
223. Some of Mathsons enormous mountainside building blocks for his pyramid-support
16 system, were building materials consisted of gigantic solid blocks of reinforced hardened concrete
17 weighing in excess of 10- 20 tons (e.g. Photo #38), requiring huge cranes or excavators to load,
18 move or now to remove. Although odd-shaped with heavy, ugly, rusted 12-inch pipes sticking out of
19 them (see photo #39 for one version, #40 for another), which had been cut-off with a cutting torch,
20 perhaps from concrete bridges collapsed during earthquakes in the 1980s, they are nevertheless
21
somewhat analogous in size to some of the smaller blocks used in the Egyptian pyramids. Due to the
VERY steep, natural 40-70 degree cliff-like drop-offs to the south and west of Mathsons backyard
22
filling operation (Photo #42), a large amount of his toxic and other fill rolled far down the mountain
23
by gravity onto plaintiffs land below, against his large redwoods and alders, dangerously bending
24
some of them 30 off the vertical (Photo # 43), and into his creek (See two photo simulations, #44
25
and #45). Also, the extreme steepness required an approximate 15-20 foot depth of polluted fill
26
extending about 30-50 feet onto plaintiffs land in order to form a stable enough base for Mathsons
27 nearly flat lawn surfaces directly above in their now greatly expanded backyard. By directly
28 commandeering (and ruining) the above-referenced approximately 1/3 acre of plaintiffs adjacent
land to form this truncated pyramid-like base to support his expanded flat backyard, (Photo #48,
etc.) Mathson managed to substantially flatten, greatly strengthen and protect from erosion and
slides in storms or earthquakes, a total of nearly one acre of his land above which previously had
sharply sloped and was also very unstable. In other words, to support Mathsons approximately 3/4
79
1
acre increase of useable backyard, extending out in all directions, defendants appropriated, severely
2
polluted, effectively directly ruined and rendered worthless about 1/3 acre of plaintiffs land directly
3
below defendants hazardous waste dump projects, more indirectly injured and ruined a further
4
half-acre further down the mountain, in addition to causing the other problems complained of
5
herein, see also e.g. photos # 46-48).
6 224. Plaintiff is further informed and thereon alleges that from an unknown time until 2003,
7 defendants contracted with various unethical or WORSE trucking (e.g. Joe Costa has been mentioned)
8 and construction companies to haul-in numerous large truck-loads of the polluting and hazardous
9 filling materials, miscellaneous junk, toxic metals and other contaminants listed below.
10 225. The discovered evidence has shown so far, as above, that defendants contaminated fill,
related junk, toxic sewage wastes and assorted garbage was mostly dumped on Mathsons flat
11
property and then pushed with a large loader operated by Skillings, carefully sorted with the
12
WORST toxic junk and hazardous material deliberately placed or just pushed-off the bank onto
13
Remingtons property, leveled and compacted above in Mathsons backyard, over many months
14
with various kinds of very heavy machinery, including at least one excavator (they say), a small
15
cat at one point, and a huge rubber-tired loader, which was parked beside Mathsons house for
16 many months.
17
226. Remington saw nothing of defendants project in 1998, nor did either of his two sets of
18
eyes and ears in the 1998 local community then (Jim Wilbur and Russ Bianca) ever mention
19
anything about a Mathson project of any kind. Remington himself was far too busy in summer
20
1998 to fool with or watch anything Mathson might have been doing, because he was working a
21
major retail store alone, with no employees, 7-days per week in daylight hours, opening and
22
closing the store, and also simultaneously moving the entire 4-6 million pound inventory, almost
23
alone to Westgate during that very defendants project. At least thats the inference, and based on
24
their perjured, self-serving and unsubstantiated hearsay, view of the fact that neither plaintiff, nor
25
any of his witnesses or acquaintances saw anything like that in 1998.
26
227. Therefore, still relevant and TRUE, as to WHAT Remington did know and WHEN he
27
learned it, and quoting verbatim from a 2008 FAC: At some unknown time prior to plaintiffs
28
discovery of the dumping and pollution problems in January 2006, defendants, without the
consent, authority or knowledge, and against the will of Plaintiff, intentionally entered onto the top
of the hill above plaintiffs land and thereafter trespassed substantially onto plaintiffs northerly

80
1
2 property described above with miscellaneous heavy equipment and OVER14 1.4 million pounds
3 (over 560 cubic yards) of non-native, adverse materials. Defendants then dumped, pushed,
4 meticulously SORTED-OUT the bad toxins, like asbestos, chrysotile, benzene and lead to
5 Remington, whereas the good top soils were scooped-up and saved for Mathsons flower
6 gardens (SEE all photos, all showing BAD stuff on Remingtons land today). The bad stuff was
7 compacted, just like they do in a standard landfill and than thereafter BURIED also just like at an
8 ordinary garbage dump and and usually covered with a thin veneer of clean dirt. Defendants net
9 result after 4-6 months of this was that they built a residential hazardous waste dump which
10 concealed hundreds of tons of there profitably hauled-in, polluting, non-native fill materials,
11 garbage, junk and all of the other debris described below, see PHOTO #s 2-18, 24-31, 38-48,
12 etc), to the detriment of Remington, the environment and the entire community.
13 228. Defendants thorough 100% concealment, described above, was cleverly accomplished
14 in MANY ways, including, without limitation: Digging holes to stabilize huge concrete chunks set
15 on a 60 slope; burying all toxic debris such as the asbestos, so that no one would ever know it was
16 there, under less toxic materials (like HC gravels, where the contaminants are invisible); then
17 pushing massive stumps and piles of redwood branches (See Photo # 49), plus at least 50 tons of
18 rotten old growth logs over onto Remingtons land; then planting ivy, Nasturtiums, blackberries,
19 wild lilies and many infectious weeds over the area, while 1-4 deep of Redwood needles fell there
20 each season, like a blizzard of snow; planting huge Escallonia bushes along the fences and piling
21 several feet deep of scrap iron, palettes, stolen and salvaged pulp mill carts, materials and scraps,
22 firewood, etc. See Photos #12-18, 27-28, 49, etc) for defendants clever, tricky, criminal methods of
23 protecting the ground from excavations, walking through the contaminated area or visual discovery
24 of the worse contaminated materials. See SIMULATION photos such as #s 12-18, 27-28 & 29, etc
25 in Volume III, which are photos of actual debris, which was scattered all over the dump, in such a
26 manner as it would take five wide-angle photos to capture most of it. In some of said above photos,
27 actual dump surface debris was consolidated from several actual dump photographs and placed on
28
14. New depth borings at several key locations on the downhill side of several dump-impacted redwood
trees in winter 2015-16 revealed that the depths and the most crucial area along the property line is much
deeper than originally estimated, which if twice as deep as previously estimated, than that would multiply
the total volume of encroaching material by two also making the encroaching volume as great as 1000 yd.
Probably the true number is somewhere between 560 and 1000, but as Dr. McEdwards has observed in
February 2016, we wont know exactly how much is there until it is excavated and loaded onto dump trucks
and then added-up.
81
1
2 the surface of the ground in one consolidated image, to help this court, these defendants and future
3 jurors see the actual debris and UNDERSTAND the scope of the problem in a clear visual,
4 understandable manner, without having to study and understand a dozen related photographs which
5 can never clearly show the overall scope and extent of the debris, due to the major natural obstacles,
6 such as forest of redwood trees. Other simulations take ALL buried underground debris and place
7 on surface, as indicated.
8 229. The result of Defendants 1998 era efforts was to make identification of or recognition
9 of a residential hazardous waste dump by Remington or regulatory authorities entirely
10 IMPOSSIBLE until such times as: (1) John Mathson removed his surface debris and stored
11 usable items in about 2004, (such as 95% of what was stored in the area of photo # 16, and study
12 ALL photos); (2) Remington had a SERIOUS NEED and a very high motivation to clear and
13 USE all of that steep, log and stump-laden, dense sunny blackberry patch area (photos #47 & 49)
14 for his gardens and vast irrigation projects; (3) Remington had completed the development of ALL
15 of the rest of his more easily developed lands, but still had at least 1000 trees and bushes in his
16 nurseries to plant; (4) Remington had the time, energy, motivation, sophisticated experience (and
17 considerable courage) to BURN (Photo #41) many tons of Mathsons debris in the middle of a
18 DRY forest, where every fire started new fires in the dry redwood needles lodged in redwood
19 trees, etc.; (5) Remington realized the strategic, potential beauty and photographic importance of
20 that deep ravine, beautiful Creek and major waterfall area, and, as above, had sufficient free
21 trees and plants root-bound in his nurseries needing a good home; (6) Remington had hand-
22 excavated hundreds of steps up that mountain to access the area with plants and supplies, etc.
23 Before the steps and paths were laboriously developed in early 2006, the area was entirely
24 inaccessible, undevelopable and no burning, planting or irrigation could take place until many
25 months was spent on the steep paths, meandering through the gigantic concrete blocks and debris.
230. Remington noticed problems mostly in the ground as he went in there, but not until he
26
had dug more than 100 planting holes ON the dumped debris itself alone, and at least another 150+
27
large planting holes below that area in very near it, which were partially AFFECTED by the debris
28
and contaminated waters, did the entire DIRE contaminated situation gradually and eventually
become clear. Therefore, by 2008-11, when the aforementioned 250 or so plants DIED (e.g. Photo
#42 & 49) or mostly died despite Herculean mulching, automatic irrigating and hand-watering

82
1
effort, plaintiff realized growing trees on the dump was fruitless and wasted effort and gradually he
2
abandoned his valiant attempts.
3
231. Defendants fill began along a narrow steep strip of land beside defendants house, which
4
defendants appeared to have filled in a Southerly direction, until it was nearly flat (for their firewood
5
and lived-in travel TRAILER, Photo #15, upper right), and then they continued their massive
6
filling project down the mountain to their SW beside their backyard and for nearly 200 further into a
7
wild, pristine redwood forest, most of which was Remingtons lands, see e.g. photos #46-50, ETC.
8 What appears to have originally been a gentle 20-degree slope Southwesterly is today over 50-
9 degrees, due to the flattening on top and the very steep, rocky pyramid-like base now on
10 Remingtons land defendants built to support Mathsons flattened, planted areas above. Defendants
11 illegal dumping and filling substantially leveled, expanded and made usable (per Joy Mathsons
12
overly candid deposition) an estimated 1/2-3/4 acre of defendants backyard which cumulatively
amounted to MANY hundreds of yards weighing thousands of tons. This defendants dumping
13
directly impacted approximately.3 or more acres of plaintiffs land, and indirectly partially polluted
14
all of his property, below the landfill and North of the ravine and Remington Creek, as explained
15
previously. All this is shown in photos but each needs an explanation, NOT provided here today, yet.
16
232. Joy Mathson said VERY clearly in her deposition: (We) intended to fill the ENTIRE
17
ravine, as though it were ours (although they knew otherwise, but assumed they could clandestinely
18 get away with it because they thought that Remington would never know about their crimes, never
19 discover the debris or need to use that rugged side of his ravine, which did work for a while. Joy
20 Mathsons exact words were that they were trying very hard to fill that Remington ravine, (SEE
21 photos) BECAUSE: It would give us more land, usable land. Their criminal intent from the
22
beginning was to appropriate and steal that land, but they were caught doing it and eventually that
land evolved into becoming a very valuable portion of Remingtons property and real estate, and is
23
essentially the primary subject of these lawsuits.
24
233. It took Remington eventually more than $20,000 of SHN investigatory expenses, plus at
25
least that value of his own time, including 3-4 times the number of hours SHN spent on this project,
26
to figure-out these problems. More importantly, without this lawsuit which precipitated Blue Rocks
27
Insurance company-financed investigations, which investigations discovered the heavily degraded,
28 toxic hydrocarbon saturated gas-station remediated soils, underground piping and related lube bay
and UST tanks and accessories (e.g. Photos #11, 15, 31, 44-45, 58-60, etc), etc, SHN would not
have known what to test for initially; and, hence we would not be as far along as we are now in
evaluating and fully characterizing defendants hazardous waste dump. In other words, it took Blue

83
1
Rocks $10-20,000 of costs and discussions, PLUS ours, to get even close to seeing the extent of the
2
problem here! However, now we know that Blue Rocks 2010 tests were fraudulent and bogus
3
because they were all conducted out of holding-time, which means in scientific terms that all of
4
their results are incompetent and fraudulent because they were deliberately understated by
5
many times, but we still assume the basic chemicals identified were accurate, just their
6 concentrations are understated. Also, Blue Rock only tested for a few things and now we know that
7 the worst hazardous materials at the landfill were not tested for by Blue Rock at all, e.g. the asbestos,
8 chrysotile and E. coli and coliform. Back in 2000 or 2006, who was going to spend $30-50,000 on
9 tests, over the discovery of a couple odd metal objects, which presumably had just come from mass
10 and stolen pulp mill junk, and some asphalt and concrete chunks which were almost totally obscured
by weeds, blackberries and piled brush, as per photo #27? The answer is: No one, nor was it
11
reasonable to do so in 1 in 1000 similar cases with these superficial fact patterns. Apparently, we just
12
got lucky here, that the Mathsons secretly resented, were envious and therefore HATED
13
Remington, enough to happily RUIN Remingtons land and life. Then in 1998 RAO happened along
14
with their illegal get-rich-quick scheme and the Mathsons were thereafter able to kill two birds with
15
one industrial-sized stone: Greatly expand their inauspicious back yard to somewhat compete with
16 the scope of the big house, and most importantly try to get-back at Remington BIG-TIME for his
17 building that house in the first place, and making them sick with envy. Besides being about criminal
18 profits from a vast illegal short-hauling dump scheme, this case is ultimately about retaliation and
19 revenge by the Mathsons against Remington, beginning in 1998 and continuing still in 2017. What
20 began as a defendants simple garden-variety criminal class I hazardous waste dump built in the
21
middle of a residential redwood forest, next gradually became a corrupt fraudulent conspiracy for
several years and then by 2011-12 blossomed into the full-fledged Gans-led cover-up by and for a
22
RICO extortion racketeering enterprise, directed solely against Remington, which is apparent today,
23
see PHOTO charts #26 and 30 show Defendants classic method of covering their debris 100%
24
with dirt. See also photos 42-56, etc.
25
234. More details. Discovery of Mathsons massive hazardous waste dump on both properties
26
was NOT reasonably done earlier than 2006, for the following reasons, summarized above, and which
27 were greatly expanded on orally in the 2016 July-August SOL trial, and include in part:
28 Remington was extraordinarily busy in ALL of 1998; he was mostly out-of-town or out of the
Country after hand-moving his entire 5-8 MILLION pound burl inventory from Broadway to 832
Westgate after selling the valuable Burl Tree property to Flying J Gas; Remington worked a major,
busy, seasonal retail store, 7 days/week, ALONE in 1998 WHILE moving that massive inventory
using one 12-15 yard dump truck load per day, delivered in the evening by an independent driver,
84
1
whereas Remington always stayed at 3527 S Broadway until after dark, selling retail borough
2
customers and hand-loading his heavy pick-up for delivery at Westgate after dark, 98% of the time;
3
Plaintiff, Remington saw no one and spoke to NO ONE, not even Jim Wilbur on Westgate Drive
4
during that period about anything, nor did his driver see anyone or speak to anyone; HAD Remington
5
seen a loader off in the distance, as he did briefly one evening, pushing dirt in a backyard to plant
6 lawns it would have been and WAS of ZERO interest; the Mathsons were his GOOD FRIENDS whom
7 he trusted implicitly until 2006 and if they HAD done a project, only they knew where the property
8 line was and Remington would have had ZERO concern about anything, KNOWING (HE
9 THOUGHT) that if one stray rock or dirt clod went-over the property line John Mathson would
10 retrieve it the same way he had previously dutifully moved ALL his debris stored on Remingtons land
over many years immediately on the first asking; The area where Mathson apparently expanded his
11
lawns was 100% blocked from Remingtons views in 1998 by low-branched redwoods, ETC, as is
12
proven by dozens of photos, largely from 2003, which are now mostly still locked-up in the SOL trial
13
evidence; It was humanely almost impossible to get into that area in 1998 on foot or by by any other
14
means, as very SEVERE stinging nettles guarded the East 100%, giant, dangerous very unstable,
15
impassable burl piles blocked any access from South, plus the ravine covered by vines made it
16 extremely DANGEROUS due to concealed holes, etc; Also there were no bridges across the ravine
17 until about 2004-8, and very dense brush along the creek made any crossings of the 20 deep ravine,
18 with up to 80 degree banks NOT REALLY NECESSARY, or possible when it was muddy for the
19 majority of the year, unless one had a REAL good reason for going across there, which Remington
20 never did, UNTIL January 2006 is explained above and elsewhere.
21
235. Remington had over three (3) other difficult, wild acres to tame and never reasonably went
over to the dump area AT ALL from below it, until leading his English relatives on a 200-yard hike
22
around 2005-6 to show them the extent of Remingtons land and how he had an impenetrable,
23
impassable, dangerous jungle-like setting right here in Cutten, where you could get trapped and die
24
only 100 from the roads! That 200-yard hike took 30 minutes in those days for in-shape 35-year olds!;
25
Remington never did that normally and only 2-3 times previously, around 2002-5 had he extended his
26
deer fences ABOVE the dump off the existing fences in the area, which John Mathson kept open so he
27 could access his JUNK stored on my land. The Mathson dump was 100% buried, on both properties
28 then and invisible, except for a small pile of debris Mathson mostly removed in 2003 (PHOTO #18
is last 5% of said pile): During that fence construction Remington asked Mathson to remove anything
he wanted back to HIS SIDE of fence, and he did that promptly apparently removing everything,
however a year or two later when the blackberries and weeds were dormant it became apparent that
another 3-4 feet deep (by 20-30) of junk had been left there (as photographed around 2007 after most
85
1
of the brush BURNING), which Remington did not worry about in 2006 while we were friends;
2
ANYWAY, as above, Remington needed more land for his owned plants by 2005-7 so began the
3
development of his last good, rich top-soiled land; EVEN in 2006, when Remington discovered
4
asphalt and concrete, and two odd metallic objects far down the mountain (see PHOTO #10, 13, 39-
5
40), the source or significance of that was NOT clear or cause for concern, not at all; Would a good
6 friendly neighbor deposit 1.5+ million POUNDS of debris on a neighbors land, not hardly and
7 inconceivable!; No other visible evidence of any contaminants were there, and it took 4-6 years of
8 later investigations to discover ecoli, coliform, friable (invisible) asbestos, benzene, concentrated
9 hydrocarbons (Photos #7-8) and gas station accessories (photos # 11 and #44-47), etc;
10 236. You could barely write a believable Hollywood script like this! Who would conceive of or
even believe today a plan to bury industrial quantities of more than 200 10-yard dump loads of
11
illegal hazardous gas-station remediated wastes and spoils on a trusting neighbors land in a
12
spectacular redwood forest, with an ocean view and then carefully cover it with a thin layer of organic
13
debris which almost fully concealed it until it was excavated with a maddock, as per photos and
14
charts? Probably, no one would buy that script, including Remington until well-into this lawsuit,
15
which started-out simply enough over a fence and some easily removed visible debris, and then the
16 numerous expert investigations got us HERE. Incredible, unexpected story, but TRUE!;
17 Contaminated water seepages (PHOTOS #7-8 are representative of all seeping waters up to 200
18 below defendants toxic landfill) were also NOT visible until planting holes were left vacant for a few
19 months in the mid-2000s in swamp and other areas. The sources of THAT water are 100% ONLY
20 from uphill, which is 100% ALL Mathsons land or defendants fill on Remingtons land, also
21
obviously implicated somewhat; Even into April 2008 it was not at all clear what was happening here,
as asphalt and concrete, as defendants point out are not a total catastrophe in themselves, but as
22
Aveggio said it is what went WITH them that are the REAL problem, heavily HC saturated remediated
23
gas-station soils are now OBVIOUS, underground accessories, asbestos, benzene, aromatics,
24
carcinogenic dusts, etc are now all implicated here, significantly almost ALL invisible and
25
ODORLESS mostly; In sum, Remington trusted his good, pseudo-kind, deceptively honest-
26
appearing, friends, into 2008, had ZERO reason to attempt to cross the dangerous ravine in that area,
27 for ANY reason until 2005-6; and, then had to conduct a super-human, ingenious, with sheet metal-
28 shielded super-hot burn piles, with adjacent very flammable forests (usually) well-protected by
pressurized water, burning project, in the middle of a residential forest tinderbox. There were a
couple briefly out-of-controlled fires to keep this project difficult and dangerous, but burning was
absolutely required to get near to bare dump-surface materials, which turned-out NOT to be clean

86
1
inert DIRT. The ground under the surface debris was eventually revealed to be about an average of
2
10 deep in most places of hazardous buried debris, covered by redwood needles and weeds, ETC.
3
237. Defendants clandestine and illegal dumping onto BOTH properties occurred without
4
securing the required county permits or any excavation-related permits at ALL, resulted in
5
polluting plaintiffs land in a widespread area and constituted a nuisance and continuing trespass,
6 as complained of below. Defendants have provided the false cover-story to conceal illegal
7 activity of doing all this law violating hauling, dumping and concealment under the guise of a
8 garage expansion building permit, what a joke! Gans explanations were never believable, were
9 always false and fraudulent deceit but now our various manifestations of criminal behavior by a
10 RICO enterprise. First it was their tricky cover of a bogus County disposal permit for 250-
yards which they violated by more than 120%, and now Gans tries to sell us a new deceptive
11
excuse, which will ultimately never satisfy the criminal authorities when the Broadway gas-station
12
remediation materials are eventually TRACKED by government investigators, now in progress.
13
The complete fraudulent deception and rather brilliant criminal conspiracy devised here by
14
Gans and his codefendants is not yet fully investigated or penetrated, but we will attempt to do so
15
over the next several years, with some help from the appropriate governmental agencies.
16 238. The cumulative effect of defendants illicit dumping caused irreparable damage to
17 plaintiffs property, planting project, and plans for a natural, colorful, WELL-UNDERWAY unique,
18 botanical park under the redwoods for that portion of his property. Now, nothing significant can be
19 planted ON or below the dump that will grow well easily or at all, and by 2014-15 all but 4-5
20 surviving plants have been moved to ordinary ground, with the last hydrangeas and Service Berries
21
to follow before remediation, so that area is now and will likely remain substantially bare of
significant, fruitful plantings, until imminent remediation down to good topsoil plus the retaining
22
wall assumed by Aveggio since 2010. Where huge amounts of good soil for each plant were brought
23
in with great difficulty and added to large arduously hand-dug holes, a few plants survived for a
24
while in isolated instances. Even with big holes and huge amounts of compost the ultimate results
25
were deemed uncertain in 2008 and in 2016, very NEGATIVE. Nothing beyond Mathsons weeds
26
and fertilized, watered ground covers can now survive on the dump for MANY reasons, including
27 the numerous toxins present on the site, the (literally) concrete-like soil and lack of any moisture or
28 top soils for the top 3-15 of dump materials on the surface. As of November 2008, approximately
half of the trees and bushes planted in that area had died, despite enormous salvage efforts by
Remington and by 2016 it was 94.5%, with the remaining 5%, that somehow got lucky removed
and planted IN the creek itself or on its banks, etc

87
1
239. Defendants criminal project and its gradual evolvement into the present RICO
2
enterprise. Plaintiff alleges that the Mathsons (M) and their illicit contractor RAO (including
3
Skillings, Olson, Randall, The City, etc., cumulatively Defendants) dumped, deliberately pushed
4
onto and clandestinely buried then further fraudulently concealed over 560 cubic yards of
5
encroaching contaminated fill onto Remingtons land in 1998 and thereafter. That series of
6 criminal nuisance and trespassing acts occurred while RAO in collusion with the Mathsons, the City
7 and presumably Randall were conducting a major unpermitted and thus unlawful hauling, dumping,
8 disposal, excavation and contaminated landfill and concealment project, apparently with the
9 additional purposes of: 1) Providing a cover for their illegally developed residential hazardous
10 waste dump; and 2), providing the supposed benefit and inducement for the Mathsons to cooperate
in receiving a free $150,000 backyard lawn expansion over a Love Canal hazardous waste
11
disposal facility.
12
240. The Mathsons inferentially received a significant cut of the illegal cash and the larger lawn
13
area to MOW on top was merely a necessary evil from that leveling of and extension of their entire
14
mountain top. The Mathsons dont play crocket or tennis and do not NEED big lawns for anything they
15
do. They DID spend a lot of cash on their major remodels, sheds, vacations, plantings and garage
16 expansion projects, and where all that money came from has yet to be determined. It can now be
17 inferred that RAO PAID them some cash for the lavish gift of allowing THEIR land and Remingtons
18 to be used for the VAST Class I landfills they BOTH have now become, which continues today without
19 any mitigation or relief.
20 241. In their SWORN depositions and recent trial testimony, defendants have admitted and
21 acknowledged carefully sorting and placing the worst materials, such as ASBESTOS (up to 60%
22 when only 1% is hazardous in California), lead, ecoli, PAHs, Benzene and underground gas-
23 station apparatus onto Remingtons land, see PHOTO #1, 9, 10, 12-15, 51, ETC for typical
24 asbestos pipe, 25% Chrysotile and Crocidolite.
25 242. If the Mathsons did not want something it was, as a matter of record and present cross-
26 sectional inspection donated to the HATED Remington. Eventually they sorted-out over 560 yards,
27 probably WELL-over, as above, of contaminated debris for plaintiff, which must have made the whole
28 project enjoyable for them, since they could betray and punish the hated Remington for his massive
Too BIG house (Photo #52, etc., Joy Mathsons quote) that was slow to complete to Mathsons
specifications and had too many roses, etc. Many defendants bank deposit, tax deduction and taxed

88
1
2 cash income records will be sought in the future years of DR140426 Discovery, and HERE, probably
3 simultaneously in BOTH suits.
4 243. RAO had HUGE costs here on this project and HAD to have had a large incoming revenue
5 stream and an enormous surplus (over costs) just to break-even, while they provided this purportedly
6 free service to the Mathsons and absorbed their estimated minimum possible $90-150,000 of costs
7 from that illicit profit because the Mathsons paid them nothing.
8 244. RAO therefore had to receive large sums of illicit CASH from the major oil company
9 polluters or their subcontractors (like Beacom Construction), so that RAO could even just break even!
10 RAO could make the aboves massive volumes of remediated gas station contaminated soils, gravels,
11 USTs and saturated diesel and oil soils disappear, plus absorbed all of the major concrete demolition
12 and asbestos pipe/insulation projects, etc involved here. After this period, RAO suddenly had huge
13 amounts of spare cash which they (and Olson/Skillings) used to build a large number of residential
14 structures along Walnut Dr. at Northridge and all over Cutten. Discovery will reveal the source of the
15 funding and the exact number and costs of ALL those fancy houses which suddenly appeared all over
16 as though RAO suddenly acquired a couple million dollars from somewhere.

245. Remington experienced hydrocarbon contamination and witnessed all aspects of
17
hydrocarbon pollution in 1998 at the Burl Tree beside Flying J Gas, so knows a lot about the costs and
18
wealth associated with oil companies and their costly remediation projects. Additionally, for many
19
years he had to monitor professionally-dug wells on his own and, and watch numerous other
20
professional environmental consultants make plans, dig wells, install the casings, take soil and water
21 samples from hand borings and monitoring wells, etc. All of that experience has led to Remingtons
22 ability today to conduct simple tests on his own land and understand the wider significance of all of the
23 tests on topographic maps or groundwater gradients.
24 246. The central beauty of defendants plan was that all their criminal, hazardous dumping was
25
supposedly originally properly done (and as legitimized by Gans in his 2016 pre-trial documents and
trial arguments) under the guise (and confusing red-herring) of a legitimate County disposal
26
Agreement for 250 yards of pristine Cooksey soils which were collapsing onto Ridgewood Drive in
27
and before 1998. Even THAT simple, innocent-looking, good-faith agreement between Mathson and
28
Humboldt County Public Works was knowingly egregiously VIOLATED by 20 times!
247. Defendants contaminated and ruined Remingtons land. As described below and in the
supporting scientific, deposition and other supporting documents (provided in Remingtons related
2014-15 SJ-SS and all DR140426 filings, and included here by reference), in detail, Defendants

89
1
encroaching fill was hazardous with asbestos, benzene, iron, ecoli/coliform, lead, severely
2
contaminated with concentrated HCs from gas station remediation projects, and riddled with
3
underground piping, a leaking UST and even a lube bay hydraulic cylinder from said remediations,
4
per ALL photos specified above, see Volume III.
5
248. It is now absolutely 100% certain that MUCH of the fill at Mathsons landfill originated at
6 gas stations being remediated, otherwise where else did the huge volumes of soils and sand
7 saturated with very HIGH old diesel, degraded 1940s era motor oil and gasoline values come
8 from? Those VERY high, very OLD HC values cannot be duplicated or simulated in any other
9 reasonable way. They HAD TO COME FROM many years next to and supporting leaking, rusted-
10 out and overflowing tanks, deteriorated Northcoast piping and pumps (exposed underground to salt
and continuous water levels), which now result in laboratory values showing 20-50 year-old HC
11
signatures present in ALL Mathsons imported soils from said gas-station remediation projects,
12
now still on BOTH properties still today.
13
249. AS a result; Remingtons RE experts have testified for years that said illegal dumping onto
14
Remingtons land has reduced its value by the cost of removal, which is now in excess of $160,000+, for
15
SOILS ALONE, in the main dump. Costs of dealing with waters and additional soils in the swamp and
16 toe-of-the-fill adjacent to Ridgewood and above the culvert for Remington Creek is another
17 $100,000+ to be precisely BID by Dr. McEdwards when he is fully immersed into this case. This project
18 was unknown to Plaintiff until 2006, and gradually was discovered to constitute a continuing nuisance
19 and trespass, with MUCH less to be discovered in future investigations on BOTH properties.
20 250. Unfortunately an excavator is needed to explore the materials covered by 5-10 ton chunks of
21
debris, so that will be used in this case going forward in THIS case to provide REAL, extensive data not
merely the 1 millionth now visible, plus professional field estimates and hundreds of hand excavated
22
holes, about what really was buried there, such as suspected radioactive or biological wastes.
23
251. Defendants entire project was illegal then and now, and knowingly criminal because they had
24
NO PERMITS of any kind there to do any work, and county grading, filling and disposal permits were
25
required for this project, but never could have obtained. Defendants, and ALL of their guilt is proven
26
today by fact they didnt even TRY to get permits or inspections at any time, just to HIDE all details and
27 criminal permitting failures. Today, Gans RICO enterprise continues with their overall conspiracy,
28 coverups and direct extortive attack on Remingtons business property, personal emotional and physical
health and well-being.
252. The Mathsons have FULLY admitted liability for their encroachment, since 2009, and re-
emphasized their encroachment and damages to Remingtons land in their sworn trial testimony
in summer 2016, but have always tried to understate, trivialize, minimize and simply put, to LIE
90
1
ABOUT its magnitude. Their experts claim on faulty and fraudulent solid geometry that they only
2
encroached with maybe 60-110 cubic yards. Each cubic yard of Mathson debris weighs between about
3
3-4000 #. Even at 3500# thats still 350,000 #, a lot of wheelbarrow loads at that site. [See SJI # 27:
4
2000C-for calculations of VOLUME OF ENCROACHING MATERIALS, see chart #23, on
5
Remingtons land, and related document accumulations related to each issue here for over 10 years].
6 253. Remoteness and unusability? Even today in 2016, Defendants also further falsely
7 minimize their criminal trespass, nuisance and negligent liabilities by claiming their crimes were
8 committed on a remote portion of Remingtons land difficult to access at one time, (BEFORE it
9 was 100% developed), but not today. TODAY, defendants dump on Remingtons land is in a
10 CENTRAL HUB area of activity, with all utilities (electricity, lighting and county water) in the
center of plaintiffs most crucial irrigation systems, through paths and water storage reservoir
11
systems. Only 150 from plaintiffs central offices, equipment and plant storages, said area of Tank A
12
and pump hole A are NOT INACCESSIBLE, far from it. There are three (3) bridges in and TO the
13
area, numerous interlocking paths and a planned excavator route, kept dry over the winter with a
14
huge sheet of black plastic, layed-out amongst the burl storage above to open-up the area to heavy
15
equipment imminently. Since 2006-2008 this area has been a major HUB and nerve center of
16 Remingtons entire irrigation and agricultural operation, with several through paths to the bottom.
17 254. Defendants also claim all debris and toxic wastes dumped and buried on Remingtons
18 land are totally clean dirt, pristine and that the asbestos, lead, human sewage, benzene, xylenes, and
19 other concentrated HCs, asphalt and concrete are not a problem, not hazardous and are just too
20 minimal to require comment or certainly any removal, BUT, see all photos in Volume III. ALL 5-6
21
Remingtons and County experts who have studied Remingtons site disagree. In fact, Remingtons
February 17, 2017 remarks on the hearing record summarized our position as follows: If defendants
22
encroachment was so minimal and there debris was so benign and inert, then why dont they just do
23
the cleanup themselves as Ferriman claim could be done for $10,000 at one time? That answer will
24
be probed further, however we already know that they would rather pay Remington $200-$300,000
25
then take a risk that they could remove their contaminants for that price. [SEE also RICO statement,
26
3 C-D, pages 215-221, UNDER Gwinn and Ferriman for enterprises objectives and false
27 declarations in the state in federal cases to date, anticipated to be put into proper federal RICO
28 predicate act violations imminently during discovery here.]
255. Defendants incompetent testing results from Blue Rocks out-of-holding-time
2010, on Mathsons land. Gans tricky false defense excuses, DECEIT, unethical, unreliable and
wrong scientific testing values on Mathsons property, broadly deceptive tactics and very
EXTENSIVE use of false logic employed to avoid paying to clean-up their mess are all significant
91
1
facts in this case, which gradually evolved and morphed-into this corrupt RICO enterprise attack
2
on Remingtons business.
3
256. Briefly, Gans masterminded bogus, intentionally fraudulent testing, deceptively on the
4
WRONG property and then grossly UNDERSTATED those results due the fact that their tests were
5
run in Los Angeles about 7-weeks after the samples had volatilized and hence their results were no
6 longer valid. Those tests were false, unethical, fraudulent and deceptive on two major grounds: 1)
7 They were NOT done on the property at issue, which is only Remingtons, but on a different
8 property 50-300 away from the complained of pollution in these cases; 2) The results of their tests
9 on the WRONG property were then substantially understated, based on the false theory that what
10 was on Mathsons land was identical to what they sorted and placed on Remingtons land. That
was NEVER true because Skillings specifically and admittedly SORTED and PLACED the worst
11
toxins (like ASBESTOS pipes) onto Remingtons land because Mathson refused them. Gans entire
12
defense was bogus, unsound and illogical, BUT was tricky, very clever, employed plausible
13
appearing false logic and was therefore confusing to all, especially judges and juries, wishing to
14
find a quick ending to all of this.
15
257. A GOOD EXAMPLE OF GANS DECEIT IS AS FOLLOWS:
16 A. False premise #1. First Gans argues for a false equivalency of materials between the
17 properties and that the same contaminated fill exists on both properties because it all originated on
18 Mathsons land. [See RICO Statement for more]
19 B. Next Gans and Ferriman specifically controlled and LOWERED the contamination values
20 from their land, by deliberately sending samples all over California until they had vaporized and lost all
21
their potency, and scientific competency. Grossly out-of-time, defendants hydrocarbon values were
meaningless. VERY HIGH still but understated by 200-500% or more, a factor we cannot estimate but
22
just know the results are FRAUDULENT, WRONG and deliberately self-servingly understated.
23
C. Finally, Gans deceitfully argues that said fraudulent testing values must obviously ALSO
24
apply to Remingtons tests, despite his very different contrary, more positive results, and despite the
25
utter absence of any identicalities, because of said initial SORTING. In any case, Gans succeeded in
26
confusing the issues to Judge Reinholtsen and Judge Vadas and any jury hearing these issues and
27 evaluating Blue Rocks incompetent tests is likely to be NEXT15.
28
15 [See SJI # 29: 2000E-ALL DEFENDANTS UNDERSTATED (OUT-OF-TIME) TESTING,

REFERENCES AND WITNESSES RELATED TO MATHSONS LAND ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE
CONTAMINATION ON REMINGTONS LAND 200 FEET AWAY, BUT HAS BEEN A SUCCESSFUL
ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE AND CONFUSE THE TRIERS OF FACT.]
92
1
258. HIGHLY INFECTIOUS Human excrement bacteria. Compounding the above
2
contamination on plaintiffs land, and causing GRAVE infectious bacteria in the dump area, which
3
have made Remington very gravely ill several times now (see e.g photo # 32), and exuding fluids
4
there, is the Mathsons unpermitted and VERY illegal (again) backyard septic system which
5
covers half their backyard which they FALSELY claim is not connected and was never used!
6 Remington knows better and saw them connecting and using it for the first few years in the early
7 2000s BEFORE this lawsuit. Discovery here and the next INVESTIGATION in DR 140426 will go
8 first thing to that backyard septic tank to PROVE Mathson perjured himself (further) in this trial
9 on that topic. It now appears likely that Mathsons federal deposition will precede our investigations
10 of Mathsons backyard and our excavation of that septic tank, so we should have Multiple federal
perjuries already on record to verify with our 2018-19 evidentiary site investigations. See photos
11
#7-8, however the REAL toxic bacteria and viruses are INVISIBLE, as is the lethal asbestos.
12
259. Defendants contaminated all waters here on both sites, since 1998. Besides
13
contaminating the soils on Remington and adjacent to the landfill, and IN and beneath them actually,
14
Defendants have also severely contaminated all waters flowing off that mountain: on, within and
15
below ground, per 2 photos provided of dozens. That severely polluted water has been observed,
16 recorded and complained about since before 2007, and has been lab tested from 2008-2011 with
17 always consistent results for varying seriously contaminated amounts of old HCs, human fecal
18 bacteria, lead, benzene, PAHs, asbestos and others. ALL testers, including Defendants experts, who
19 have attempted to ignore the HC smells and friable asbestos blowing about the sites, have witnessed
20 various manifestations of contaminated water, resulting in SHN and the Countys dramatic 2011 tests
21
which corroborated all previous Remington, Aveggio, Hoyos, Ferriman, Gans, Foget and Gwinn
observations (and said above stick test) from test hole #1 to the swamp near Ridgewood Drive,
22
in the toe of Ms fill, see photos #7 and 7A.
23
260. Remington Creek and his lower swamp area have been declared an imminent
24
threat by John Aveggio in August, 2011, as a direct result of said above contaminated water
25
observations, measurements, photos, smells and lab tests. That imminent threat was declared by
26
SHN to health and the local environment, including Remingtons and all local residents above and
27 downstream from the sites. The County (Maje Hoyos, Mark Johnson, Eric Bruckner, etc) obviously
28 agreed with that assessment in independent tests a few months later by referring this water
contamination case to two Water Boards. Remington agrees that these dump areas and environs are a
severe health threat as he has been infected, weakened and almost killed at least 3 times in the
past 3 years by various bacterially originating diseases and further weakened by immune system
pathogens, including viruses as specified elsewhere, but are only generally summarized herein.
93
1
Defendants have been put on notice for more than a year that Remington alleges severe near fatal
2
pathogens from the landfill area have weakened and sickened him since 2012, infected his lungs
3
(with asbestos, silica, asphalt, lead and HC dusts and fumes) and ultimately substantially caused his
4
2015 Ramsey-Hunt syndrome, deafness, disequilibrium, and acute circulatory stasis disorders. This
5
case will have hospital and related medical testimony to back that up.
6 261. Generally, David Tidwell has proven that Remingtons principle damage is the cost to
7 cure, which means the costs to remove the toxic encroachments and to deal with all contaminated
8 waters from BOTH properties, as outlined previously. Simply put, Remington will be capturing
9 subterranean waters at the needed retaining wall, and then gravity flowing it west to where he and Dr.
10 McEdwards will capture, treat by several methods, and recycle it as irrigation waters to his lower
gardens adjacent to now partially dismantled Tank D.
11
262. Defendants prefer to fight and litigate than to cleanup. Over the last 10 years,
12
numerous settlement offers, mediations, 998 offers and related DEMANDS to Defendants to
13
REMOVE their debris at their expense, and if said TOXIC DEBRIS are so di minimus, why dont
14
Defendants just DO it, rather than spend 2-3 times the remediation costs battling Remington through
15
numerous successive actions, while attorneys, judges and parties come and go (see also #254
16 above)?
17 263. The reason is obvious. Defendants debris is a huge and expensive problem. They know it
18 even better than we know it. Remington has offered to end these cases (basically) if defendants
19 just agree to CLEAN-UP THEIR MESS, from Mathsons land without damaging Remington
20 FURTHER, but they have refused and are intent on TOTAL VICTORY and out-lasting Remington,
21
as in a siege, and until he dies. However, after his death, his daughter Laurel is likely to wage a more
objective and effective campaign using her highly experienced San Francisco OMelveny & Myers
22
co-workers, without worrying about costs and the 10-20 years of costs and related damages suffered
23
by Remington here, as presumably a SMART and less emotionally involved lawyer here will get
24
attorney fees PAID by defendants, and ALL of them. Probably a very major punitive damages
25
settlement would also be sought by Laurel as well as by Remington himself while he lives.
26
264. Defendants wont remove their debris and Remington has been severely damaged as a
27 result, as itemized and discussed in detail in the 2015 SAC, 2015 SA-SS, and in Remingtons 100 Special
28 Jury Instructions for 2016, are specifically ALL included here by reference, and by Judicial Notice in the
future, as still Remingtons most up-to-dateAnd the most recent statement of these issues and damages.
265. The CACI 3900 series apply to ALL causes of action, but REQUIRE a RENZ decision,
[Renz v. 33rd District Agricultural (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 61, 66-69 (citing Baker, Spaulding, Kafka and
many other California SC decisions)], as to determining any exact total damages, because Renz teaches
94
1
that total damages should start from the inception of the dispute and continue through trial and appeals,
2
so as to obviously avoid the exact problem here, which is that with 5-6 trials damages will become
3
subjective and overlapping in each time period. What is needed here, in THIS situation, is only ONE
4
damage calculation, for ALL damage after the first VICTORY granting said damages. Hence, eventually
5
a WISE state or federal judge will apply Renz here in the interests of efficiency, justice and conservation
6 of judicial resources, setting a major precedent with great public service value for any victims of
7 contamination in California or anywhere in the USA.
8 266. ALL allegations and causes of action relate equally to the Mathsons, RAO and the City of
9 Eureka (and to Randall, Nelson, Kishpaugh, et al as will be determined in discovery) in regards to any
10 ASBESTOS and CHRYSOTILE allegations, unless specifically limited or augmented.

267. Defendants, and ALL OF THEM, obtained huge, unprecedented illegal profits (or gigantic
11
hauling and dumping discounts in the case of The City) by cleverly creating their vast Class I
12
landfill (dump) largely in a portion of Remingtons pristine, secluded residential redwood forest. The
13
huge commercial PROFITS were derived from the super-short haul criminal scheme of hauling
14
hazardous debris to Mathsons landfill, which reduced trucking expenses to about 1/10 of 1% of the
15
cost and distance (to a legal dump) beyond Redding. In other words, hauling hazardous debris for
16 only 10 minutes, without costly permits and regulatory supervision, rather than the legally required
17 15-20 hours (at more than $100/hour), while further avoiding all costly hazardous and toxic dumping
18 fees saved RAO and Mathson up to $50-100,000 PER DAY, with only 1-2 trucks working! At
19 times, with rented Nichols trailers, and many independent contractors, they are believed to have had
20 the equivalent of as many as 5-10 trucks working on certain days, which will need to be confirmed
21
with our RAOs accounting records from the 1990s.
268. The unsuitable, adverse and HAZARDOUS substances known to have been hauled by
22
defendants in and after 1998 included, without limitation obviously: large quantities of asbestos,
23
asphalt, enormous 2-10 ton concrete and iron blocks and numerous additional hazardous petroleum
24
products in soils and/or liquid form, onto their own property, SEE #269 BELOW FOR MORE
25
COMPLETE LIST. That illicit hauling project began on this Mathson-Remington landfill project, in or
26
around 1998 and extended WELL-BEYOND that to at least 2004-6. Upon arrival in Mathsons
27 backyard with 3-4 million pounds of contaminants, defendants then MOSTLY deliberately and
28 intentionally pushed, placed and even carefully arranged (in a now very visible quasi-wall) well-
over 1.4-2 million pounds of said hazardous, unlawful, contaminating and associated non-native
adverse materials across the property boundary and onto Plaintiff Remingtons land, which
provided the basis of these lawsuits. That MASSIVE illegal, deliberate encroachment in about 1998-
2000, which continuous damages and varying effects continue, very specifically provided lateral
95
1
support for Defendants ENTIRE fill project and expansions above. RENT is now due from the
2
Mathsons specifically since 1998 for that precious, almost priceless to the Mathsons, foundational
3
support of their entire property, yard, sheds, Huge travel trailer, major junk storages and residential
4
structures. See relief Requested for calculations, again entirely dependent upon Renz, which will
5
vary that very substantial amount (alone) by up to 7 times, i.e. $12,000 v. $84,000.
6 269. SPECIFIC CONTAMINANTS AND HAZARDOUS ADVERSE MATERIALS
7 DEPOSITED BY DEFENDANTS ONTO REMINGTON'S PROPERTY, AND THEN BURIED AND
8 CONSPIRATORIALLY CONCEALED WITH ADDITIONAL BRUSH ON TOP, INCLUDED 16:
9 Numerous very large rocks; many tons of broken-up (toxic) asphalt chunks, gravel and
10 dust (Asphalt dust can lead to leached PAHs, known carcinogens); huge concrete blocks
(prohibited by County law in residential fill), some in 500-10,000# chunks many with rusted
11
12 diameter steel columns embedded in them, plus hundreds of and smaller concrete chunks;
12
huge rusted-out sewer pipe switching devices: hundreds of pounds of very rusty structural iron
13
of all types; miscellaneous household garbage (before they had regular pickup), unidentifiable
14
junk, dozens of tons of river stones, and gravel; toxic chemicals, including but not limited to oil
15
and lead paints in old rusted-through cans (up to 100 down the mountain); lots of gypsum
16 sheetrock and miscellaneous house remodeling debris, asphalt shingle roofing remnants, toxic
17 rusty caldrons with chemicals baked-on, rusty pulp mill equipment; all types of car parts,
18 including an old engine, car bumpers, a chassis, axles, multiple tires and wheels; 100s of
19 pounds of tiles and tile mortar, granite tiles and bricks; tons of poisoned and diseased garden
20 wastes and fungus-ridden potting soil from 30-odd years; Large asbestos (Crocidolite) pipes
21
(SEE Photo #9, and others) and pipe fragments, with free fibrous asbestos exposed to the
wind; asbestos insulation (Chrysotile); unknown sources and toxic levels of LEAD, Boron, Iron,
22
chromium, nickel, cadmium, chlorides, nitrites, manganese, copper, and zinc; huge dirty old-
23
growth stumps, many tons of redwood limbs and assorted mixed clay, sand and gravel to hold it
24
all together like mortar, from multiple unknown sources. The water emanating from beneath
25
Mathsons dump has also been proven to contain Benzene, Toluene, human ecoli and coliform
26
bacteria, xylene and high concentrations of old diesel fuels, motor oil and their scores of
27 derivative compounds, ALL of which are detrimental to and KILL all known animal and most
28 plant life in their path. The high concentrations of HCs in hundreds of cubic yards of soil could
ONLY have come from an industrial sized gas station remediation project of which there were
many in the 1990s when this project occurred. Underground piping, accessories, an
16. See Special Jury Instruction (SJI) in Case # DR080678, #26, 2000B-DEFINITIONS and
categories of hazardous pollutants deposited on Remingtons land by Defendants.
96
1
underground lube bay lift cylinder, and one small UST recovered in Remington Creek, and
2
what appear to be hazardous hydrocarbon oozings from leaking 55-gallon drums in Mathsons
3
deep draw protected by the twin 6-inch solid flex pipes and other related objects seem to
4
confirm the above inferences. See Volume III photos and charts for about 80% of these listed
5
TOXINS.
6 270. Numerous photos are available of the history of, migration of and changes in Defendants
7 dumped debris from 2008 to 2016, 99.9% of which are NOT provided here in volume III, as we
8 have about 10,000. MOST photographed debris are still on Remingtons property, but are still buried
9 and inaccessible by hand tools. As above, the 2008 photos used previously to document a tiny fraction
10 of this junk and badly contaminated water, differ radically from the 2015-16 photos which show the
vast majority of the surface debris previously uncovered has since deteriorated, volatilized, crumbled
11
and blown away or rolled and eroded down the mountain FURTHER onto Remingtons land and into
12
Remington Creek. Those photos prove extensive migration and variance over time in the pollutants
13
on the site or portions thereof. As explained orally at the February 17, 2017 hearing regarding DR
14
080678 and whether a simple statute of limitations trial could eliminate all of Remingtons continuing
15
contamination allegations without a proper Mangini II, et al, jury trial as is required under law, said
16 photos prove the third alternate and optional continuing nuisance/trespass criteria that such a trespass
17 may vary over time as per Field-Escandon, Supra. Therefore, not only is this nuisance/trespass
18 easily remediable at a reasonable cost, it is causing continuous damages today which diminish the
19 entire value of Remingtons estate, but it also obviously, visually, invisibly and scientifically varies
20 over time, which is noticeable from month-to-month.
21
271.THEREFORE, the overall photos in the case, NOT thgose provided here, make the self-
evident point that the trespassing/nuisance encroaching toxic debris is a constantly varying problem,
22
which since it is readily, economically and reasonably remediable, it is therefore a CONTINUING
23
Nuisance/Trespass and hence has no SOL. THIS action is for damages and abatement costs for the last
24
3 years only, which includes the costs of removing ALL of Defendants encroaching materials.
25
272. The above-listed materials are divided into three (3) categories of progressively increasing
26
toxicity, hazardousness and lethalness. ALL of the material is classified as at least polluted, which
27 includes all the higher toxicity categories, such as contaminated and hazardous. Some of the
28 encroaching fill is contaminated, as defined below, which also includes the worst category
hazardous, which also has a specific statutorily defined definition, and includes the 15,000 pounds of
asbestos, the lead and ecoli and coliform, for example.
273. DEFINITIONS: HEREAFTER, Remington uses somewhat interchangeably the phrase
Ms dumped pollutants, polluted, contaminated and hazardous materials, to generally
97
1
designate the types of toxins discovered in the encroaching fill, overall. There are hundreds of
2
contaminants there, ALL polluted, but only a limited amount are hazardous, maybe 2%. However
3
2% of 1.4 million pounds, 55+ dump loads is A LOT of hazardous material in a peaceful, pristine,
4
residential redwood forest. The following UNDISPUTED facts are based on the following definitions
5
of terms used throughout.
6 274. Mathsons dump site, landfill, unlawful Class I residential landfill,
7 Mathsons illegal landfill on BOTH properties, illegal solid waste facility (Deposition of
8 John Aveggio, p. 108) and variations thereon, etc, as further defined below, refers to the above
9 list, this paragraph, and to THOSE NON-NATIVE materials actually pushed onto Remingtons
10 land by Defendants, and which still exist here today. Three (3) types of encroaching fill defined:
(A) Polluted and its variations is defined as anything non-native pushed onto Rs land
11
which includes ALL of the above, hence ALL of the alleged 500+ yards is POLLUTED and contains
12
all of the above materials, NOT native to a redwood forest. Mathsons expert Gwinn claims LESS
13
from using misconstrued, TOTALLY faulty data, and ALL 3 dimensions that Gwinn used were
14
WRONG, as explained in detail below, and PROVEN at RJN, Vol. 2, Exhibit. K (A-131), V, W, etc
15
and discussed extensively below. Mathson originally concealed his 500 yards of serious
16 contaminants beneath a mountain of redwood slash weighing more than 10 tons, which Remington
17 arduously hand-gathered, piled, covered with plastic for months and then burned during the winter in
18 about 15 major burn piles where flames went-up 100 or more, so THOSE 10 tons of redwood
19 branches, etc are GONE now, and not included here as pollution.
20 (B) Contaminated refers to a significant portion of the above, MORE THAN 50% but NOT
21
ALL of Mathsons dumped debris. Only 30-40 of the ten (10) yard dump loads of the above deposited
onto Remingtons land is fully contaminated, meaning it contains soils with very HIGH HC levels of
22
motor oils, diesel and gasoline from gas station remedial projects around 1998, complete with some
23
related underground piping excavated by backhoes with the soils, one UST, and one underground
24
grease-pit lift cylinder recovered to date, in our incomplete investigations, asphalt dusts, toxic iron,
25
chloride, nickel, nitrite concentrations. Contaminated materials also contain ALL the HAZARDOUS
26
materials below. The 15,000# of discovered and statistically inferred ASBESTOS, which is
27 HAZARDOUS material, is therefore also included in that middle category of contaminated and also
28 is polluted obviously. Toxic and poisonous, etc refers to categories B and C combined, but not
to merely polluted.
(C) Hazardous, hazardous materials and hazardous materials posing an imminent threat
are only 2-3% of Mathsons trespassing fill and to date, in our minimal testing of all materials
overall and comprise:
98
1
275. ASBESTOS pipes (25% asbestos), where ONE percent asbestos is classified as
2
hazardous under Title 22 and 27 of California State regulations, and hence MUST be
3
removed, See Deposition #2 John Aveggio (now deceased), page 110, RJN, Volume II, A-158,
4
SEE PHOTO #9 for example;
5
A. ASBESTOS CHRYSOTILE MATTING, fibers or insulation (which is a staggering
6 60% asbestos); This friable asbestos is extremely hazardous and toxic if inhaled, and it can be and IS
7 inhaled by R (for one) from 100 away currently, and hence the County told R to stay away from the
8 area of his property;
9 B. Human excrement and ecoli and coliform bacteria from Mathsons unpermitted
10 (illegal) backyard septic system, and

276. Miscellaneous other TOXIC MATERIALS: VERY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS of
11
diesel (over 10,000 mg/kg), toxic levels of degraded gasoline and other HC family higher molecular
12
weights, in all soils on BOTH properties; toxic benzene and lead; nickel, manganese, calcium
13
silicates, very toxic dissolved iron levels (killing animals which drink water saturated with it); and
14
highly toxic used degraded motor oils discovered below the dump, consistent with the excavated
15
gas-station or truck stop soils, or a possible direct spill from Mathsons small UST, which they
16 rolled down off the mountain top, and into Remington Creek, around 1998-2002. Additionally,
17 minor concentrations of chlorinated biphenyls, PAHs, PCBs, fine carcinogenic asphalt dusts and
18 aromatics, etc are known to be present in Mathsons dump, from investigations and lab tests.
19 277. THEREFORE, referring cumulatively to ALL Mathsons fill on Remingtons land as
20 POLLUTED is ACCURATE, reasonable and a gross understatement overall, since that term includes
21
the 30-50% or so of fill which is MUCH more toxic and harmful than merely polluted with adverse
and unwanted junk, car parts, Mathsons garbage, building material remnants and debris17.
22
278. This lawsuit focuses primarily on the HUGE NUISANCE (and trespass) MATHSON, RAO
23
AND THE CITY CAUSED TO Remington and created on his land, with their massive trespass of
24
encroaching fill, asbestos and numerous varieties of toxic degraded old, used motor oil, diesel,
25
gasoline, benzene, numerous unknown hydrocarbon molecular weights and the other cited toxins,
26
beginning around 1998. CLEANING ALL THAT UP AND recovering ALL of the other numerous,
27
28 17 [To better understand the allegations herein made against them, Defendants are advised to See
and review State DJA #1 (A-155, from March 2011), at section #s () 4, 7, 8, 9, 10-13, pages 3-5;
DJA #2 (A-156, May 2011) at 5, 6, 10, 11, Pages 2-6, and most importantly Aveggios two
conclusive State depositions, especially the last one on July 1, 2011, where he summarized
this whole case best, ALL provided here in Remingtons request for judicial notice (RJN),
Volume II, A-158, Exhibit W. See also entire DBR in Support of this SS of Additional Disputed
Facts, #2, and elsewhere.]
99
1
statutorily, allowed, including treble as is proper, reasonable damages proximately caused thereby for
2
the last 18 years now, is now the essence of Remingtons objectives in these cases.
3
279. California Health and Safety Code definitions. Mathson and his contractors directly
4
violated California Health and Safety Code 5411, and the MANY, MANY other statutes referenced
5
below (most especially County Title III Building Department filling and grading requirements) by
6 discharging sewage or other waste in such a manner, without proper permits or authorization, they
7 knew or should have known would cause or result in contamination, pollution, nuisance or
8 trespass, as defined below in the statute.
9 280. Under California H & S Code 5410-5416 the FOLLOWING definitions appear which are
10 employed herein18:
(a) Waste includes sewage and any and ALL other waste substances, liquid, solid
11
associated with human consumption, habitation, or from any producing, manufacturing or processing
12
operation of any nature;
13
(b) Contamination means an impairment of water quality which may lead to a public
14
health hazard or the spreading of disease, and need not effect water to apply;
15
(c) Pollution means an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree
16 which unreasonably affects: (1) such waters for beneficial uses, or (2) facilities which serve such
17 beneficial uses. Pollution may include contamination.
18 (d) Nuisance means anything which: (1) is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the
19 senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment
20 of life or property, and (2) affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any
21
considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon
individuals may be unequal, and (3) occurs during, or as result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes.
22
(e) M has perpetrated ALL of the above onto Remington and effectively violated ALL of above
23
H & S and related Federal codes and regulations with respect to their encroaching fill placed and
24
pushed onto Remingtons land. Also they violated the many SCORES more of state and federal codes
25
and regulations below, beginning about page 86 here, with the per se and County law violations.
26
That applies to soils and water in Defendants depositing of asbestos, HCs, benzene, lead, asphalt
27 dusts, PAHs and other adverse substances above, plus substantial and continuing contaminated human
28 effluent onto Remingtons land and into Remington Creek.
281. Additionally, recent comprehensive August 2011 extensive expert SHN investigations have
revealed the presence of hazardous, contamination levels of human ecoli and coliform flowing from
18. Federal definitions closely parallel these, as they are principally BASED on the Federal
statutes and definitions.
100
1
beneath Mathsons known, witnessed by Plaintiff during construction, unpermitted and therefore
2
unlawful backyard septic system. Whether that unlawful system was ever connected-up to Mathsons
3
interior plumbing system, will be easily confirmed or disproved by physical and odor sampling at our
4
next imminent scheduled discovery inspection, and is additionally not dispositive or rebutting of the
5
FACT that Mathson effluents flow and waft downhill onto Plaintiffs land. As explained above, we
6 already know what our investigation of Mathsons backyard septic tank will prove because
7 Mathson acknowledged to Remington that he used it for years before these lawsuits began and the
8 county caught onto his criminal permit violations. Especially under certain wet septic-tank
9 overflowing conditions, and when groundwater levels rise to the surface, and even in summer flows
10 off the dump area from beneath Mathsons yard. Other professional investigations, by BOTH parties
and various County and State agencies, have discovered the presence of widespread and high-
11
concentrations of toxic hydrocarbon pollution, varying over time, from under-ground water sources
12
originating beneath Mathsons landfill, which later suddenly appear above-ground by seeping and
13
flowing from multiple springs and/or creeks far below the dump, on Remingtons property, mostly
14
only 20-50 from and about 10-20 above the Remington Creek flow levels. Said pollution then can
15
and DOES flow directly into the State controlled (Remington) creek and to all of the numerous water
16 courses and national wildlife sanctuaries and preserves directly downstream, just a few miles away.
17 282. SINCE 2008, ALL investigations by ALL experts from BOTH PARTIES, and on BOTH
18 PROPERTIES in and below the dump, have positively confirmed Remingtons initial valid 2008-9
19 University of Massachusetts soil, numerous anecdotal visual and olfactory tests (so apparently
20 blatant as to obviate additional testing) and Stevens Ecology water testing RESULTS, listed
21
below. BOTH the Mathson and Remington properties in the huge landfill area have consistently shown
HIGH HC concentrations for old motor oils, old diesel fuel, toxic metals and gasoline derivatives
22
entirely consistent with, or even in excess of, the average SEVERE HC concentrations discovered at
23
and then removed from Flying J (to which results Plaintiff was privy to, ID, A-145), the 76 station and
24
other similar highly contaminated local sites. The 2011 SHN and County tests confirm serious water
25
& soil contamination on BOTH properties, but THIS LAWSUIT is ONLY about remediating
26
Remingtons property. The continued presence of buried contaminants on Mathsons property is NO
27 longer within the scope of Remingtons requested relief as Brisso has well- protected, and continues to
28 do so, the Mathsons there, and the WQCB can now deal with the Mathsons, or not, probably in the next
generation after Brissos death. Meanwhile, Remingtons engineers believe we can capture toxic
subterranean runoff in the buried perforated pipe above the retaining wall described herein and then
purify said effluent liquid flows at the bottom of pipe near Ridgewood as planned and required.

101
1
283. 25% ASBESTOS encased pipes and 60% Chrysotile asbestos have been found all over
2
that area since discovery and identification in 2010, and it continues to blow in every direction and to
3
migrate down wards towards Ridgewood Drive under any and all water actions, see Photo #9 for
4
typical 25% asbestos pipe.
5
284. ALL significant water tests on Remingtons land, since 2009, have had similar positive
6 HC/ecoli results in each test location, region and year. ALL valid and scientific soil tests by Mathson,
7 Remington (and SHN and the County) have confirmed serious contamination of the dumps tested
8 filled soils (except obviously in moving water).
9 285. Also, subterranean waters from both properties, far below the dump, as scientifically
10 measured near Ridgewood in the toe of the fill by SHN, Remington personally and the County,
Maje Hoyos are now PROVEN to be seriously contaminated with HCs, ecoli and coliform bacteria.
11
As provided in much more DETAIL in the DR140426 complaint from 2015, ALL STATE
12
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT A- EXHIBITS (IN ALL 3 VOLUMES) ARE CITED HEREIN
13
AS BACKGROUND AND PROOFS FOR THESE DR140426 ACCUSATIONS, and are included
14
here by reference, to the extent not already memorized and/or needed by Defendants to understand
15
the allegations against them NOW and at a trial.
16 286. Even ALL defendants Blue Rock tests that were measured FAR out-of-holding time after
17 substantial volatization showed very high hydrocarbon values. Their TRUE value in honest tests are
18 presumably 200-500% higher! SHN AND REMINGTON heavily relied upon Gans; fraudulent tests.
19 287. Defendants wastes MUST be removed to restore Remingtons land to pristine and
20 disclosable RE sale condition according to Remingtons 3 RE appraisal experts, including Nielson.
21
[From FED 2009 FAC p.11+]
288. Laboratory tests in these cases since 2009 have also revealed the presence of NUMEROUS
22
semi-transparent and/or non-visually identifiable toxins in the affected soils, surface water and
23
groundwater. These include high concentrations of lead, boron, manganese, copper, iron, sulfur, zinc,
24
potassium, calcium, magnesium, extracted nickel, ASBESTOS (see PHOTOS #9, 10, 3, 12-15 and
25
51, etc) of various types, and nitrates in the SOIL and very high bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes
26
counts in the water samples, see below.
27 289. Additionally, the water samples taken from or just below the five (5) contaminated water
28 point sources (e.g. photos #7-8) emanating from beneath Mathsons dumping area revealed
extraordinary hardness, extreme turbidity, with a high chloride and bromide count, a high nitrate
content, large concentrations of magnesium, calcium (from the cement), strontium, zinc, arsenic,
HIGHLY TOXIC levels of iron, manganese and nitrite, and EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS levels
of lead. The tests also revealed a VERY HIGH total gasoline and diesel component, including
102
1
benzene at 15 times the recommended upper limits plus significant levels of MTBE, toluene,
2
ethylbenzene and xylene.
3
290. MANY of these materials dumped and now stored underground by defendants are high
4
on the ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry) ranked list of toxic substances.
5
291. After carefully placing, leveling and building with his structural and toxic materials and
6 other junk, defendants then carefully concealed their contaminated fill materials and pollutants, on
7 both properties, with many yards of good topsoil on his property and with many tons of sand, clay,
8 gravel, redwood logs, limbs and millions of redwood needles on plaintiffs property. Plaintiff was
9 left with a now useless, precipitous, rocky, contaminated slope, whereas when defendants had
10 completed their dumping, leveling and concealing operations on their property, they then planted
expansive lawns, built sheds, made an elaborate graveled travel trailer-parking pad, piled ugly
11
firewood everywhere and built multiple chain link fences on top of it all. In other words,
12
defendants have effectively STOLEN a substantial portion of Remingtons best and most
13
useful prime land north of the Creek, which Remington now wants back plus back rent for the 19
14
years and counting of heavy and crucial use by the Mathsons. That issue is one of the prime bases
15
of these lawsuits.
16 292. Discovery of defendants crimes against Remingtons land. Beginning in 2006, these
17 hazardous and related foreign materials were first gradually discovered by plaintiff during planting
18 and path excavations in the area. The 2009 NOTICE letter provides further details of that
19 discovery, as do many of the documents in the state case. The 2016 NOTICE LETTER again
20 summarizes much of but not ALL of this new case. Further investigations and numerous tests have
21
since been proven scientifically over the last three (3) years that defendants pollutants and fill
materials listed above consist of many hundreds of tons of materials still piled on BOTH properties
22
and which have contaminated defendants and plaintiffs soil, ground and surface waters and
23
continue to do so via springs and other point sources continuously and daily, even without rain.
24
This contaminated water has an unimpeded path into Remington Creek and thereafter directly to
25
Elk River, the Humboldt Bay Wildlife Preserve and the other cited connecting public watercourses.
26
The asbestos discovered by Aveggio in 2010, and tested by the prominent lab in Los Angeles,
27 Western Analytical provided serious, lethal Chrysotile 60% results and asbestos pipe Chrysotile
28 10% and Crocidolite 15%, or 25% total asbestos, with very friable edges. There is an estimated
15,000 pounds of the 25% asbestos pipe and an unknown quantity of the 60% left, after it has
become air borne for the past 18 years! SEE PHOTO #9, etc for typical 25% asbestos pipe.
293. Plaintiff alleges that defendants knew or should have known that their fill, surface water,
ground water, soil and entire new, expanded backyard was contaminated by large amounts of the
103
1
toxins and other substances listed herein, especially lead, saturated hydrocarbon soils, sand and
2
asbestos, and that they had also carefully placed, buried and otherwise systematically concealed
3
hundreds of tons of said pollutants on a remote and inaccessible portion of plaintiffs land.
4
294. In June-July 2009 two professional testing laboratories, one in Oregon and one in
5
Massachusetts tested a variety of soil and water samples from several point sources below
6 Mathsons dump and also tested several controls from the normal, uncontaminated areas on the rest
7 of plaintiffs property for comparison.
8 295. SOIL TESTS. A summary of the specific soil test results to date is as follows: Adjacent
9 to and directly below Mathsons dump and filling operation there are HIGH to EXTREME
10 concentrations of lead (806 parts per million, hereafter ppm), boron (401 ppm), manganese (124
ppm), copper (125 ppm), iron (296 ppm), sulfur (379 ppm), zinc (141 ppm), potassium (140 ppm),
11
calcium (2358 ppm), magnesium (2221 ppm), extracted nickel (12 ppm), and very high nitrates
12
in the SOIL. The soil controls around plaintiffs residence under construction and elsewhere on the
13
property averaged 10-100 times LESS than below Mathsons dump, which is located on the
14
hillside on the north side of the deep draw on plaintiffs land and Remingtons Creek. Also,
15
every few weeks new rusted cans of unknown chemicals and/or related junk are discovered in new
16 plant excavation holes in that area, and to date, a considerable amount of particularly obtrusive and
17 invasive Mathson junk and hazardous material have already been removed from the site by hand
18 and hauled to the dump with considerable difficult labor and some expense. About fifteen (15) tons
19 of Mathsons redwood logging debris and other burnables deposited directly on and/or below the
20 dump site have also been dried, covered and then legally burned by permit over the last five (5)
21
years, with considerable difficulty and some danger.
296. Water Tests. Laboratory tests from WATER samples taken in June 2009, from three (3)
22
of the five (5) toxic point sources emanating from Mathsons property have so far revealed the
23
presence of very high bacteria counts from Mathsons water discharges (7800 CFU/ml),
24
abundant fungi and actinomycetes counts; EXTREME hardness (1145 ppm), which is almost 10
25
times the drinkable limit; and extreme turbidity (25,846 ppm with 5 ppm being the drinkable limit).
26
The water tests also revealed high chloride (470 ppm) and bromide counts (2.2 ppm) and an
27 extremely high, toxic and poisonous nitrite component (716 ppm). 716 ppm is 70 times higher than
28 is drinkable by livestock or the many kinds of wildlife that try to drink from the creek and beyond.
297.The water samples also showed large concentrations of magnesium (110.3 ppm),
calcium (253.4 ppm from the cement), strontium (50.3 ppm), zinc (8.04 ppm), arsenic, HIGHLY
TOXIC levels of iron (223 ppm), 1700 times beyond the drinkable limit, HIGHLY TOXIC levels
of manganese (9.11 ppm), 182 times the drinkable limit and EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS levels of
104
1
lead (10.97 ppm), 731 times the drinkable limit. Asphalt and the organic poisons it is associated
2
with were not tested for in these particular tests. Typical below dump water samples look like
3
photos #7-8.
4
298. The laboratory report also stated that the very high metals content may have obscured
5
the amounts of many other minor trace elements that are likely present. Additionally, there is a
6 VERY HIGH total gasoline (580 ppm) and diesel (4020 ppm) component, including the highly
7 toxic carcinogen benzene (73.5 ppm) at 15 times the recommended upper limits. Significant levels
8 of MTBE (8.1 ppm), toluene (222 ppm), ethylbenzene (39.2 ppm) and total xylene (203.8 ppm)
9 were also detected by the water testing laboratory in Oregon. Cumulatively, the soil and water
10 below Mathsons dump is highly toxic and very poisonous to all living things coming in direct
contact. By comparison, virtually all of the springs, water seepage and surface water on the south
11
side of the draw, i.e. totally outside the watershed below the Mathsons dump is pristine and devoid
12
of the above-cited toxins. See all composite projectable photo charts for MUCH more of this.
13
299. Regulatory agencies have designated surface and ground waters in this area of California
14
as capable of supporting domestic supply, as are most of plaintiffs springs, and have established
15
maximum contaminant levels for petroleum constituents in surface and ground waters. Defendants
16 are violating those levels for hydrocarbons and for many of the other hazardous materials listed
17 above and below. Remington Creek has flows of up to 50-90,000,000 gallons per year in an
18 average rainfall year, and Remington has plans to capture, store and recycle to the community said
19 waters, inexpensively, after the water shed is remediated and the hydrocarbons are REMOVED for
20 good.
21
300. Benzene, toluene, silica, asphalt and asbestos dusts are known carcinogens and/or
reproductive toxins and have been listed under Proposition 65 since at least 1991. Surface and
22
groundwater from this area are used by multiple users, all types of wildlife now and are also
23
potential sources of future drinking water under applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board
24
Water Quality Control Plans (aka Basin Plans). The Mathsons have discharged Benzene, the other
25
named carcinogens and the other numerous hazardous materials cited, onto Remingtons land and
26
into the local environment, without limitation, on a daily basis since at least the late 1990s, which
27 continues today. Remediation by an Injunction from this court or from a federal JURY is
28 immediately requested, while all parties are still living.
301.THIS CASE IS A SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL CASE, like the prior

successive action state case DR140426, and primarily requests remediation of Remingtons
lands, damages for only the three (3) years prior to suit, and of course quashing of the frivolous
105
1
2 collateral estoppel claims on federal SJ law grounds. See description, definitions and discussion in
3 DR080678 SJI #28, 2000D, also applicable to DR140426. BOTH cases are still technically on-
4 going, but both are currently stayed pending resolution of DR08067819.
5 302. Thus, to Remington trying THIS contamination and accompanying RICO case next
6 makes sense to him, as the most efficient manner of reaching justice, the truth and cleaning-up his
7 property. WHY SHOULDNT THE POLLUTER PAY TO CLEAN-UP HIS OWN
8 ADMITTED MESSES? What could be simpler? A speedy 2-day trial could resolve that issue
9 easily. Since defendants have no intention of cleaning-up even one bucket load of their deposited
10 crap, simple litter cleanup is now a jury issue, and hopefully a FEDERAL one. When you dump
11 your trash can of paper letter on the highway and get caught doing it, you are responsible for
12 cleaning it up. Nothing is different here in principle except that the numerous federal laws cited
13 have been violated, as well as the obvious state law violations. The beauty of RICO is however
14 that the collusive conspiracy of lies which Gans used as his sole defense in the state cases now will
15 send the perpetrators to federal prison, which presumably will cause them to think twice about
16 following Gans corrupt orders and either cause them to tell the truth under oath, or more likely
17 to just attempt to disappear from these cases entirely, if they can get away with it. The perjurers
18 from the state trial and prior sworn statements are now fully implicated here and will have
19 extreme difficulty now extricating themselves without just admitting they lied and telling the truth
20 now, which may exonerate the first 2-3 that DO THAT, and turn against Gans and the Mitchell
21 firms RICO enterprise.

303. Successive Actions, generally:
22
Present California law governing damages for continuing nuisance/trespass is now
23
WELL-ESTABLISHED by a long series of MAJOR California Supreme Court and other important
24
interpretive appellate court decisions for over 80 years through 1996, and beyond, beginning long
25 before Kafka v. Bozio (1923) and Spaulding v. Cameron (1952) 38 Cal. 2d 265 and concluding with
26 Mangini v. Aerojet-General (Mangini II) in 1996, 12 Cal. 4th 1087, with over 121 following
27 decisions. It is now settled law, except perhaps as to stigma. See Remingtons REPLY to Defendants
28 19. BOTH referenced plaintiff cases are now bogged-down in possible judge changes, the second
part of a trifurcated trial schedule and Remingtons anticipated appeals presumably causing a re-
trial of all three phases of DR080678, primarily based on trial judge errors granting bogus
collateral estoppel, barring crucial impeachment evidence of all defendants perjuring witnesses
and for entirely simplistic, confusing, erroneous and inadequate jury instructions, NOT instructing
on underground trespass manifestations and what level of visual damages puts a plaintiff on
notice to spend $10-50,000 to see if his land has been harmed by INVISIBLE toxins.
106
1
2015 Motion to Strike the 2014 FAC, for best summary, AND ALSO PLAINTIFFS TWO
2
RECENT SUMMER 2016 MEMORANDUMS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF and significance of
3
successive action cases in California and elsewhere, the last one is the BEST in 33 pages,
4
entitled: Remingtons 8-19-16 Opposition to Dismissal motion, requesting continuation of the 2nd
5
phase of trifurcated trial on liability for continued N/T even with CE applied.
6 304. Injunctive Relief REQUESTS. Mathson, his new co-defendants, their insurers, still
7 unknown DOES and all of them, are liable for injunctive relief for:
8 (A) The retaining wall and perforated drainage pipes at its base;
9 (B) An ORDER to remove the encroaching non-native debris found on Remingtons land by
10 the Statute of limitations (SOL) trial jury and entirely acknowledged by Defendants; and
(C) An ORDER as explained above to allow, without limitation, the Discovery Investigation
11
and Inspection of Mathsons land, especially in the region of the SW termination of their infamous
12
Twin 6 Pipes and also the Mathsons back yard septic tank area, installed illegally without
13
permits and in deliberate violation of all Humboldt County septic system and related laws. But for
14
Mr. Brissos influence the Mathsons could be serving jail time for that outrageous thumbing their
15
nose at and laughing at Humboldt County law violation, without remorse or penalty to date.
16 305. Remingtons primary damages today are for removal under the federal and state
17 statutes cited herein and in the state complaints, and for the severe damages already caused by
18 the toxic substances which were ALREADY placed by Defendants on his land in and after 1998,
19 and thus NOW still exist here on his land.20. As also explained, probably redundantly, above and
20 that footnote 20, NO OTHER, ADDITIONAL MATERIAL NEEDS TO MIGRATE, BLOW,
21
ERODE, SLIDE, OOZE OR MOVE FROM MATHSONS LAND TO REMINGTONS,
BECAUSE IT IS HERE ALREADY! Movement of material DOES continue, especially from what
22
is already HERE, unstable and collapsing lower down the mountain in every wind and rain,
23
24 20. To be clear, Remingtons cases are ABOUT remediating contaminated wastes ALREADY placed
and which have ALREADY migrated here, onto Remingtons side of the Pulley line. In other
25 words, they are already here NOW and no more migration or leaching are needed to make a
26
cause of action. They are contiguous with the massive wastes dump on Mathsons land, but since
they are HERE now, already, no more migration, leaching or emanations are needed,
27 cited, complained about are required here, because those dynamic forces have already been
underway here for at least 19 years, and the primary damage has been done, although it continues
28
and varies in magnitude, week to week. The County and WATER BOARDS will eventually worry
about what is on Mathsons land still, in the years to come, and ABSOLUTELY WHEN Remington
Creek is needed for drinking water above, which could be very SOON. About 50 million gallons of
water was lost there in winter 2015-16, and probably twice that when the winter of 2017 is over;
however, it is contaminated most if not ALL of the year now so its tributary springs flowing from
beneath Mathsons hazardous waste dumps must be cleaned-up first.
107
1
HOWEVER No more toxins or encroaching poisons from defendants are required in order to
2
enhance Remingtons present valid causes of action. Theyve done enough already! Now,
3
Remington very respectfully requests that the court order defendants, and all of those involved in
4
implicated in this issue, to remove the industrial quantities of what they illegally deposited and
5
buried here, or assisted in the process, either knowingly, negligently or without culpability, as they
6 discovered facts will determine.
7 306. Remington also requests repayment for ALL damages to his property caused by
8 Defendants criminal violations, either from the Court or a suitable jury, and requests reimbursement
9 for damages for, without restriction (see Relief Requested in last sections here): Hundreds of
10 miscellaneous formal and informal investigations, all testing, administrative expenses, responsive,
monitoring and remediation costs caused by Mathsons releases, illicit dumping and defendants
11
deliberate pushing of highly toxic hydrocarbon-saturated soils and careful, willful placement of
12
enormous concrete and asphalt blocks and other hazardous materials, including the disposal of
13
MANY thousands of pounds of asbestos insulation and pipes, onto Remingtons property, and the
14
subsequent relocations of said debris lowered down onto Remingtons land caused by water and
15
gravity forces.
16 307. Remington maintains said Defendants violations constitute a continuing and continuous
17 nuisance and trespass. Associated with those California crimes but not because of them are proven
18 extensive continuing migrations and measurable movements of the dumped materials due to strong
19 gravity forces on these very steep slopes. There are likely varying degrees of underground leaching,
20 convection, capillary action, etc, which we have not measured, erosion and generally movement
21
DOWNWARDS of dissolved or mechanically pushed hydrocarbons, and many other heavier toxins in
both solid, dissolved or other directly waterborne states21. Whereas, the large amount of friable
22
asbestos, lead vapors and dusts, asphalt and silica dusts, fecal bacteria and viruses and other very
23
light toxins, which are mostly invisible, travel in all directions from the dump including sideways
24
and up-hill in Remingtons air with the prevailing winds from the west.
25
308. Since Remingtons land is so far-below Mathsons landfill, dissolved, suspended and
26
otherwise transported hydrocarbons are forced downwards by gravitational forces alone down the
27
28 21.Discussion of all of the theories of the movements of hydrocarbons and the other toxins present on site
here is beyond the scope of this document but would include: cohesion-tension theories of movement;
osmosis and related hydraulic forces and close systems; electrokinesis; sorption; water percolation;
convection; adhesion-cohesion actions as well as capillary action and the other forces noted in the text above.
It must be noted once again that Remingtons theories of continuing nuisance and trespass DO NOT
depend upon some simplistic leaching or migration terms which Gans illicitly pulled from
Remingtons 2008 complaint before any discovery or experts were involved in the case, and before
Remington had made any scientific analysis of his own regarding said physics and physical-chemical forces.
108
1
very steep slopes, both above and below ground, where they reappear below at several levels on
2
Remingtons swamp land as stinking, ugly and clearly poisonous contaminated springs, pools,
3
wetlands and seepages, many photos attached show the steep grade with Remingtons land below.
4
309. As a result, Said dumping and toxic releases have rendered Remingtons previous
5
valuable property almost completely VALUELESS on the market at present, causing enormous
6 damages, until the hazardous, HC and related non-native materials can be removed, and the property
7 is again expensively RETESTED, monitored and certified as cleaned-up. Said above dumping,
8 releases and willful placements of said hazardous and other unsuitable materials onto Remingtons
9 land, without any permission ever, or knowledge by Remington until Discovery in January 2006, and
10 their continued releases today (described above) also constitutes a continuing trespass. All relevant
case history, needed prior Court filings, for 8 years, especially the 2014-15 state SJ/SA
11
Appendices I-III) are incorporated here by reference, as this simple 200-page document cannot
12
begin to tell the full case story, in view of the number and complexity of the causes of action.
13
310. For example, the County and states air quality control inspector Eric Bruckner advised
14
Remington in 2011 NOT to disturb or even go near the contaminated asbestos areas which are
15
above-ground, and emitting very tiny, submicroscopic asbestos and chrysotile fibers; however, three
16 (3) important trans-property working paths go directly THRU or immediately adjacent to that area,
17 and therefore Remington must go within 30-120 feet of the asbestos dumping area. When that
18 inevitably occurs every month or so, invariably Remington suddenly without any noticeable
19 provocation begins uncontrollable, DEEP coughing for several minutes, not readily controlled by
20 drinking water ASAP, even if Remington can sometimes get to some drinkable water from an
21
irrigation hose, however usually, Remington must struggle, onerously and then painfully cough-
back-up the mountain to drinking water supplies, which takes several minutes22. These dangers
22
from minute pathogenic substances and organisms are all invisible, sudden and occur at different
23
distances depending upon the direction of the wind. However, after several serious attacks of
24
25 22 In 2015, Remington became violently ill after visiting the lower dump areas, while he was
working on irrigation equipment which was exposed to toxic pathogens oozing from the side of
26
Mathsons hillside adjacent to his untreated, non-percolated septic wastes. As a result, Remington
27 became totally incapacitated a few days later, had to be literally rescued, and carried-out of his bed
at 832 Westgate Dr. by two strong ambulance drivers, and then was hospitalized for 8 days in fair-
28 poor or worse condition, which never improved at all in the hospital. Today, more than two years
later Remington is still only about 45% recovered from the profound disequilibrium and also has
nearly total (80%) hearing loss in his right ear, and serious labyrinth disruptions, which are NOT
recovering and are now deemed to be medically PERMANENT. Remington still has numerous
other symptoms, but overall is perhaps 60% recovered by now. Most of defendants toxins are now
known to be invisible bacterial microbes or tiny wind-borne fibers of friable asbestos, lead or
silica dusts or Benzene and other HC fumes, after several years of scientific study.
109
1
pneumonia and one related serious flu from 2013-2015, Remington finally realized that he really had
2
better stay away from there because there are potentially DEADLY toxins down there. Today, when
3
Remington has serious matters to attend to in that area, such as maintaining major irrigation pump A,
4
he usually tries to wear a respirator in the vicinity of the dump area, as exemplified in some of the
5
2015 videos, involving additional deeper drill borings to determine the fills depth at various
6 locations. Photo #32 portrays the very deadly serious nature of this problem for Remington.
7 311. Additionally, nothing fruitful, which was originally planted and then almost entirely died,
8 grows on most of the dump now, just veracious Mathson-planted weeds, ivy, blackberries and other
9 infestations, totally unaffected by Roundup or most herbicides. Eric Bruckners above advice to stay
10 away was good, but just as unworkable as staying away from a main hallway in your home with
essential rooms branching off of it, even if only closets and storage areas of said hallway. In other
11
words, there is always something for Remington to do in that general area, about 90% of which
12
involves locating fences destroyed by defendants and repairing the holes put in said fences to allow
13
deer, bear, wild dogs and foxes etc.(as described elsewhere) to destroy Remingtons property, and it
14
is hard to tell when you are too close and starting to inhale invisible irritating particles, especially in
15
the twilight or dark when most fence repairs, usually must be done. Compounding that visibility
16 problem is that mesothelioma and asbestosis take many years to develop and fester, and when the
17 symptoms occur such that you know you have it it is too late and usually fatal.
18 312. Restitution. Additionally, the Mathsons, RAO, various DOE subcontractors, and their
19 insurers have been unjustly enriched by failing to remove their hazardous debris which they ADMIT
20 they are responsible for ILLEGALLY DUMPING and then DELIBERATELY PUSHING ONTO
21
REMINGTONS LAND, to the great financial and emotional detriment of Remington, whose
property value has thereby been reduced in value by an expertly calculated approximation of at least
22
$260,000, (as of 12-15), and increasing at least monthly.
23
A. That magnitude of loss (or REAL damages to land alone) continues, has been increasing during
24
2016-17, and will remain until all the hazardous substances are removed to the satisfaction of the
25
environmental consultants, governmental agencies and real estate appraisers.
26
313. Unjust Enrichment is no longer recognized as a cause of action or cognizable allegation,
27 according to Judge Reinholtsen, so Remington now asserts RESTITUTION as an alternative
28 manner of recovering these damages, and to the extent that restitution is GREATER than
Remingtons damages calculated by addition of all reasonable damages, as determined by a trier of
fact after a contamination trial. Remington can recover either his TOTALED-up damages, through
trial and all appeals, under Renz v. 33d (39 Cal. App. 4th 63) or conventional additive methods or

110
1
defendants totaled-up unjust enrichment profits from their criminal activities, whichever is higher.
2
Obviously, only the HIGHER value applies, and not BOTH methods added together.
3
314. Beyond that, as a direct effect of defendants UNJUST ENRICHMENT and large profits
4
obtained on this project, a permanent STIGMA will now remain for Remingtons estate, because of
5
the legal necessity of FULL DISCLOSURE going forward. STIGMA encompasses the imminent
6 danger or likelihood of pollution returning to Remingtons land, because the primary SOURCE and
7 main body of the landfill remains on Mathsons land, which appears unlikely to ever be fully
8 remediated, in a reasonable time frame for the present owners and litigants. Each buyer will react
9 differently to a purportedly 100% remediated property and to the imminent RISK and quite
10 probable possible future danger of that pollution returning at some point and incurring Water Board
liability. As above, since stigma is nor currently always recognized in California as valid, after all
11
these cases are completed, Remingtons Westgate property will ultimately be appraised by
12
Remingtons multiple real estate appraising experts and sold on the market. At that time expert
13
information and opinions from actual buyers will be known and definite so any sale price BELOW
14
what would be expected or appraised for an estate of the magnitude of Westgate, will be ascertainable
15
and a stigma subtraction factor, IF THERE IS ONE could be determined at that time and recovered
16 potentially in a new successive action trial, if not paid-out by Allied Insurance, without same, which
17 would be highly unlikely. At this time, it is probable, and nearly certain that such a stigma lawsuit will
18 be necessary 5-10, or less, years in the future. Obviously that would also particularly apply if
19 defendants succeed in screwing Remington out of reasonable remediation costs based on the unjust
20 application of collateral estoppel and then Remington is left selling an estate which has diminished in
21
value by $3-400,000, which would be provable after said sale. Under one doctrine or another,
eventually defendants will be responsible for restoring the value of the Burl Trees entire estate to its
22
original pristine value.
23
315. Indemnification. Remington also seeks a declaration of future rights and duties of the
24
Mathsons, RAO and any other DOE defendants with respect to potential FUTURE environmental
25
claims asserted against Remington by individuals or governmental regulators; as well as
26
environmental orders issued to Remington by any such third parties or governmental agencies, such
27 as the California Water Quality Control Board, which may assert that Remington is liable for
28 remediation and other damages associated with the presence of hazardous materials at, under, near
and continuing to emanate daily from Mathsons property and Mathsons unlicensed landfill
presently illicitly maintained on Both properties. Those hazardous materials, described more fully
below, and in the 2014-15 SJ Oppositions and 2015 offensive SA motion, migrate in water due to
gravity and then flow directly, rapidly, visibly (and invisibly below ground) downhill, both above
111
1
and below ground, onto and into Remingtons soils and waters, and then further steeply
2
downhill into nearby, adjacent Remington Creek and beyond as described above and below.
3
316. Additional indemnity against future STIGMA attributable to the contamination IN and
4
from Mathsons hazardous waste dump.
5
No insurer would ever indemnify Remington or his future buyer from such risks, nor would any
6 known local bank extend any loans against such a risk; and, although stigma is clearly present, Mangini
7 I-III, Capogeannis, et al precedents disfavor stigma, several appellate courts have expressed
8 reservations (in dicta) and outright OPPOSITION to that fact and in the proper case, perhaps here, will
9 rule in FAVOR of stigma damages and try and bring our SC along, see e.g. Santa Fe v. Arco, 46 Cal
10 App. 4th 967, 975, 984. Thus future (anticipated) appeals of that and related issues in these cases will
attempt to slightly modify the law of Stigma damages in California going forward in certain provable,
11
factual situations; however for now: Another successive action suit will eventually become necessary
12
AFTER stigma damages if any have become definite, finite and provable, after an actual sale and survey
13
of all possible buyers at that time, as Outlined at # 314 above. For now, mere total remediation of
14
Remingtons property impacted by defendants, and all of them, is sought, plus eventually mitigation of
15
further damages from solid and liquid flows off the surface, from the two giant 6 twin drain pipes,
16 and from the many springs and originating 10-30 UNDER Mathsons land is sought. Also, there is the
17 more minor danger issue to be resolved caused by the leaning trees, plus all of the other damages
18 described in the last 15 pages of this complaint, and in the RICO action, a volume II.
19 317. The Mathsons maintain an actual huge, very ILLEGAL dump on their land so they will never
20 be able to market THEIR land legitimately, in its current state either, based on the public record and
21
expected imminent Water Board or TSCA or California Fish and wildlife actions, which, however, is
not plaintiffs present problem here. Any settlement or final verdict here will necessarily need to involve
22
indemnity of Remington by Mathson, Allied, et al against future contamination migrating down from
23
Mathsons mother dump above Remingtons land, and admittedly of much larger volume than the
24
WORST stuff (Mathson refused, such as the asbestos) that was sorted and placed onto that Remingtons
25
land.
26
318. Abatement. Remington therefore seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for
27 Mathsons (and his closely personally, daily supervised contractor, RAOs negligent, deliberate and
28 tortious actions; for financing the removal of the 1.4-2 million pounds (on Remingtons land
ALONE) of trespassing toxic wastes, PLUS the soils they contaminated by polluted hydrocarbon
water flows below, from Plaintiffs land; and, perhaps ultimately the insurers funds for a clean-up
of both properties, however, beginning with Plaintiffs, who then has plans to then protect his

112
1
cleaned-up land from additional pollution as best possible, and further divert Mathsons toxic
2
water run-off.
3
319. Additionally, Remington seeks abatement of the public nuisance caused by the
4
Mathsons on behalf of the People of the State of California and the United States (hereafter, the
5
people), and specifically all the users of the lands adjacent to and BELOW Remington Creek,
6 including but not limited to the Eggerts, and the numerous users of the Elk River, Humboldt Bay
7 and Pacific Ocean fisheries, adjacent marshlands, and National Wildlife Preserves directly below
8 specifically KNOWN to be adversely impacted by Mathsons continuing discharges into waters
9 emanating on and beneath his dump and unlawful residential landfill, now still situated on BOTH
10 properties. [See also SJI #31: 2000G-REMEDIATION OF REMINGTONS LAND AFTER

VERDICT, retaining wall & drainage.]
11
320. Remington Creek is a small continuously flowing creek used year-around by
12
Remington for irrigation; although in 2014-15 it has nearly dried-up in June. During previous
13
summers it had a low flow, but has never dried-up; however, in fall, winter and spring it has a
14
strong to high volume flow and now annually funnels an estimated over 50-90 million gallons of
15
what should be drinkable quality water into Elk River and beyond, and Plaintiff may build a dam
16 to trap winter torrents. In winter 2016-17, the flow may have been double that. Unfortunately, it is
17 NOT drinkable by any animal or human now, and is in fact often very toxic to fish, animal life and
18 most aquatic and terrestrial plant life. Animals appear to have died after drinking it23 as previously
19 documented in the 2008 actions, declarations, SS and numerous related documents.
20 321. Damming, storing, pumping, selling and drinking that creek water is planned by
21
Remington. In the very NEAR-FUTURE Californias increasing water crisis will almost certainly
make it necessary to capture and DRINK small local spring and stream waters such as this one, and
22
a few streams like this could potentially satisfy the needs of many thousands of local County
23
residents, freeing-up Ruth Lake and similar waters for urban destinations South, or for Humboldt
24
County and the North Coast to meet increased populations, escaping the more arid areas. Obvious
25
projections and concerns for the clean water needs of future generations are one very excellent
26
reason for remediating Mathsons landfill, aside from the economic salvation of Remingtons entire
27 property and estate value, and benefiting the entire diverse environment and eco-system in all
28 directions.
VIII. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
23. No animal, bird, amphibian or fruitful plant has been seen in or near Remington Creek in
several years as per the detailed 2011 SJ motion discussions and Deposition testimony in 2009-10,
written in 2015. The 7-8 old animal nests and dens along the creek on Remingtons land have
been completely uninhabited for many years now.
113
1
322. CWA 301 (a), 33 U.S.C. 1311 (a), prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point
2
source into navigable waters of the United States, unless such discharges are in compliance with
3
the applicable effluent limitations set by the EPA and/or the applicable state agency. These limits
4
are to be incorporated into a NPDES Permit for each specific point source. The effluent discharge
5
standards or limitations specified in a NPDES Permit define the scope of the authorized exception
6 to the 33 U.S.C. 1311 (a), such that violation of a permit limit places a polluter in violation of 33
7 U.S.C. 1311 (a) and thus in violation of the CWA. Additional sets of regulations are set forth in
8 the Basin Plan, California Toxics Plan, the Code of Federal Regulations and other regulations
9 promulgated by the EPA and the California State Water Resources Control Board. CWA 301 (a)
10 prohibits discharges of pollutants or activities not authorized by, or in violation of an effluent

standard or limitation or order issued by the EPA or a state, with respect to such a standard or
11
limitation including a NPDES Permit issued pursuant to CWA 402, 33 U.S.C. 1342.
12
323. There are at least five (5) recognizable and distinct point sources of pollutants, effluent,
13
hazardous materials, toxins and other foreign materials emanating from beneath the Mathson dump
14
areas which are discussed below in detail. Due to the hydrological connections between Mathsons
15
waste dump and the numerous adjacent springs, surface and ground waters, Mathson is making
16 illegal point source discharges onto plaintiffs land and into United States waters every day, even
17 without rain.
18 324. The affected waterways detailed in this complaint and in the CWA/RCRA/CERCLA/
19 EPCRA NOTICE are navigable waters of the United States within the meaning of CWA 502 (7),
20 33 U.S.C. 1362 (7).
21
325. The administrator of the EPA has specifically authorized the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board to issue NPDES Permits, subject to specified conditions and requirements,
22
pursuant to CWA 402, 33 U.S.C. 1342.
23
326. Defendants have no NPDES Permit for discharging their pollutants, effluents and toxins
24
into waters of the United States, and have never had one. Without a NPDES Permit, all
25
unauthorized point source discharges from beneath defendants dump, including raw sewage
26
effluents from their unpermitted and unlawful major septic system, to waters of the United States
27 are illegal. Defendants twin 6 diameter drains are NOT point sources as they merely drain
28 Mathsons backyard and a spring up there. Pollutants do however emanate from the side and
beneath those pipes emitting contaminated water which flows directly down into Remington swamp
below. Those waters flowing in the gravel and area below and beside said twin pipes apparently
emanate from beneath some of the dump areas and also access sewage discharges from defendants
front yard and unpermitted backyard sewer systems, and are therefore one of the five (5) point
114
1
sources; whereas; the other four (4) or more point sources are discrete springs flowing and/or
2
oozing odd-colored fluids directly from defendants dumping areas onto and/or into plaintiffs land
3
and then directly into the nearby all-weather creek just below, connecting with the cited public
4
waterways. Remington Creek is a water of the United States and is a direct tributary of numerous
5
major rivers and bays and wildlife preserves. Mathsons polluted water can be seen by inspection
6 the flow directly into Remington Creek thereby polluting waters of the United States in violation of
7 the CWA. THEREFORE, discharges from these five (5) defendant point sources flow, via surface
8 overflows, springs and tributary ground waters, into waters of the United States, without a NPDES
9 Permit, and are illegal in violation of the CWA.
10 327. Further, RCRA 7002(a) (1) (A), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (a) (1) (A) permits an action by any
person against a defendant who violates a federal PERMIT, STANDARD, or REGULATION
11
pursuant to RCRA. Defendants have stored, handled and disposed of materials containing, without
12
limitation, untreated human sewage, polychlorinated biphenyls, poisonous asphalt and its
13
derivatives, benzene, toluene and other gasoline/diesel hydrocarbon components, various calcium
14
silicates, tri-calcium aluminate and ferrite, gypsum, lead, selenium, nitrates, iron, and toxic levels of
15
boron, manganese, arsenic, extracted nickel, copper, calcium and magnesium, and likely other
16 toxins not yet tested for. The concentration levels of some of these toxins in soil contaminated by
17 and in water emanating directly from beneath Mathsons dump are defined as HAZARDOUS
18 WASTES under RCRA, and the manner in which Mathson buried them beneath his lawns and on
19 the precipitous slopes of plaintiffs property has allowed them to be further discharged by gravity
20 into plaintiffs soil, surface water and groundwater adjacent to defendants dump, in violation of
21
regulations regarding the use and disposal of hazardous wastes, RCRA 3004 (d), 42 U.S.C. 6924
(d). Additionally, all of the above named pollutants, and the others specifically cited below, have
22
been directly deposited onto plaintiffs extremely steep adjacent land and then buried and further
23
concealed, from which they further contaminate all areas directly below, including Remington
24
Creek, and thereafter the above-named watercourses.
25
328. RCRA 7002 (a) (1) (B), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (a) (1) (B) permits an action against any
26
person who has contributed to the past improper handling, or who is presently mishandling any
27 solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health
28 or the environment. The above-named toxic metals, hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls,
other polluting elements, compounds and substances, hazardous materials, effluents and all of the
other pollutants, soil and water problems complained of herein, both discovered and not yet
unburied, cumulatively consist of solid and HAZARDOUS WASTES pursuant to RCRA 6903
(27), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (27), and RCRA 6903 (5), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (5). All of the above
115
1
pollutants and likely many others undiscovered have been directly deposited, buried and/or
2
leached, eroded or moved by capillary or other physical principles into and onto plaintiffs
3
property adjacent to, below and downstream from defendants dump, creating an imminent and
4
substantial endangerment to plaintiffs health, land and the environment, and also to the
5
health and environment of the general public. After the honest and conscientious John Aveggio had
6 originally been unable to find or declare an imminent threat as late as July 1, 2011 at his second
7 deposition, BUT after his large series of water tests conducted from August 1-2, 2011, he
8 subsequently declared in a written note (see A-130, volume 2, appendices to various summary
9 judgment motions and oppositions) that in fact those tests prove there was and IS an imminent
10 threat after all, particularly in combination with the asbestos, benzene, lead, E. coli, coliform and
the other toxic threats we have named. Most of the so-far discovered toxins are water soluble or
11
have been carried by water currents as small particles into all of the beneficial waters of the United
12
States named above. Likely there are also insoluble pollutants present in larger sizes which have
13
not yet been discovered or which cannot be dispersed by underground water flows, or which are in
14
rusting and leaking 55-gallon drums or other containers that have not yet begun to leak drastically
15
yet or which are leaking into the soil and groundwater in areas not yet tested. Mathsons ravine in
16 the vicinity of the twin pipes is believed to house rusting 55-gallon drums which have begun to
17 leak substantially, in certain types of weather, and therefore that ravine is the major target of our
18 next lawful discovery property investigation. [See also SJI #30, in DR080678, 2000F-
19 MATHSONS AND RAOS TRESPASSES DIRECTLY CONTAMINATED REMINGTON
20 CREEK, CREATING AN IMMINENT THREAT HERE WHICH CONTINUES IN 2016, and
21
A-130, cited above.]
22
IX. DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS GENERALLY
23
329. As Discussed above, defendants discharges of pollutants from a minimum of five (5)
24
point sources so-far identified to waters of the United States referenced above, without a NPDES
25
Permit are violations of CWA 301 (a), 33 U.S.C. 1311 (a). Some violations were noticed and
26
objected to in 2008 by the Humboldt County Health Department Environmental Division and by
27 the California Department of Fish and Game, and in 2015 by the California Department of Fish
28 and Wildlife, but that was before any testing data was available. The above agencies have made no
further investigations recently, partly due to budgetary constraints and also rather obviously to
avoid getting involved in complex litigation, especially in view of the inferred LAFCo and related
corrupt- influence interaction between Paul Brisso and the Health Department officials described
in the RICO statement who communicate with Melissa Martels offices and employees. The
116
1
specific violations are separately enumerated above, below and duplicated on pages 6-7 of the
2
attached NOTICE letter. The state action cites numerous related California violations. The RICO
3
statement introduces additional but related federal predicate acts that need to be further discovered,
4
however we already have strong evidence and witnesses to support our inferences and preliminary
5
allegations.
6 330. The location and source of one of the five (5) point sources and various related
7 definitions and other explanatory matter, to prevent undue repetition here, were provided to
8 defendants in the NOTICE letter, appended here in partially redacted form for historical reference,
9 proof of its existence, circulation and for dates of service only. Said location of the federal point
10 sources were also thoroughly discussed in Remingtons 2011 federal deposition, but have
subsequently been altered somewhat by slides and other changes in that area. During defendants
11
last investigation on July 6, 2011, none of defendants experts took any interest whatsoever in
12
locating or investigating any of the federal point sources, but next time they visit they have the
13
expertise to locate them on their own.
14
331. Defendants twin 6 drain pipes flow at high volume from beneath Mathsons dumping
15
area and unpermitted septic fields, (as described above) and mix with contaminated water flowing
16 beside said pipes from under Mathsons hazardous waste dump, pushing and depositing toxic
17 water and other unknown dissolved materials, especially in winter, into and across Remingtons
18 marshy wetlands on a steep hill, only about 6 from plaintiffs property line agreed boundary
19 border fence and land, directly below. In winter. these contaminated waters often surge out of said
20 pipes like a waterfall with considerable volume (more than 500 gallons per minute at times) and
21
then can flow above-ground at high speed during the 6-8 month wet season after a hard rain,
directly onto and across plaintiffs property causing the slides complained of above. A large
22
percentage of these contaminated waters also mix with contaminated waters as explained above
23
and then partially seep directly into the marshy mud from where they then travel subterraneously
24
with considerable pressure for about 60-150 laterally and 20-50 feet vertically down, from where
25
they again reemerge onto the surface of plaintiffs land. Damaging slides on plaintiffs land have
26
recently been caused by that action. The dynamics of the above water flows off Mathsons land
27 are totally different in summer, which is when the lack of any flow from the pipes normally can be
28 distinguished from the toxic water seeping on all sides around them, both in the draw and south of
it.
332. The four (4) additional springs or discrete underground water sources described above,
appear suddenly from Mathsons land FAR above at the four (4) summer water sampling points
used by plaintiff in June 2009 which were submitted to Stevens Ecology in Oregon. The water
117
1
toxicity results presented herein are the test results from those four (4) additional polluted point
2
sources, and showed high degree of hydrocarbon and other contamination, which have been
3
consistently confirmed in all water and soil tests since then. The results always very over time
4
and obviously are never identical, but have consistently shown all of the alleged contaminants
5
from 2008-2011, which were most recently sampled by SHN in August 2011 in the county in
6 December 2011.
7 333. Defendants discharges to soil, surface and groundwater violate RCRAs regulations
8 regarding the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. These violations are established in
9 pertinent investigatory Humboldt County Health Department, Environmental Division, California
10 Department of Fish and Game files, plaintiffs business records, and in the discussions and
scientific studies outlined herein independently conducted to date by plaintiff.
11
334. The Mathsons are also routinely violating the California Basin Plan, Environmental
12
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, and toxics
13
standards promulgated by the California Water Resources Control Board in the course of
14
maintaining their dump site identified in this complaint and in the NOTICE letter. The Mathsons
15
have not obtained a California General Industrial Storm Water Permit are not monitoring their
16 contaminated storm water discharges and routinely violate the CWAs prohibition against the
17 discharge of contaminated storm water and non-storm water pollutants.
18 335. Defendants discharges to soil and water sources violate RCRAs prohibition against
19 creating an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment. These
20 violations were well-established in August 2011 and again in December 2011 in different locations,
21
as described above. Said actual substantial endangerment to Remington, the environment and all
wildlife affected is also been positively proven by the additional well-established facts that
22
defendants toxic water discharges have resulted in the poisoning of numerous wildlife flora and
23
fauna, including specifically observed birds, skunks, squirrels, frogs, tadpoles, and also trees,
24
bulbs, wildflowers and bushes planted by plaintiff. Specific animals known to frequent certain
25
areas from about 2002-2007 have disappeared and are presumed dead, and also many bushes in
26
trees planted by Remington, slowly or suddenly died when subjected to too much toxic irrigation
27 water or similar toxic runoff containing the toxins cited above and presumably also from
28 inferentially many other presently unknown dissolved substances emanating from Mathsons
property. These violations were specifically detailed in the RCRA NOTICE and herein.
336. Defendants discharges to soil and water sources also violate CERCLA and EPCRA in
that the threshold amounts of several toxins were exceeded by the Mathsons, as described above
and below, and which include, without limitation, those for lead, benzene, poly chlorinated
118
1
biphenyls (asphalt) and silicon and aluminum oxides. Also, the levels for nitrates, copper, iron,
2
manganese and other compounds, pathogenic lifeforms and metals are all so extremely high and
3
toxic on the portion of plaintiffs property immediately adjacent to and below Mathsons dump that
4
it appears likely that several other discharge reporting violations have occurred, which will need to
5
be confirmed in the future by further tests, studies and research. In any case, on plaintiffs
6 information and believe, based on the 2009-14 federal lawsuit, EPCRA was not contacted
7 concerning any of these releases of hazardous materials, which is clearly a violation of Section 304
8 of EPCRA, as complained of on page eight (8) of the 2016 NOTICE letter.
9 337. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that despite defendants knowledge of
10 the contamination of, and the numerous hazardous materials within, their fill, extending over their
entire property and part of plaintiffs adjacent land, defendants negligently, knowingly and
11
intentionally caused or allowed contaminated soils, surface and groundwater polluted with the
12
above-referenced hazardous materials to flow from upon and beneath defendants property onto
13
plaintiffs property and thereafter into the surface and subsurface waters of plaintiffs property and
14
then into Remington Creek and beyond. Remington Creek flows directly into a tributary of
15
Elk River a few hundred feet below, and then into Elk River, the Humboldt Bay protected wetlands
16 and related connecting watercourses, and then into the Pacific Ocean.
17 338. The lower portion of Remingtons Creek, below Mathsons dump, which has an all-
18 weather connection to the above-cited (e.g. #7 above) public watercourses named in the CWA and
19 RCRA Notices has now been proven to be polluted from the various known cited water point-
20 sources emanating from directly beneath the Mathson property dump. The contaminated soil in
21
that area and directly below, referenced above, is heavily eroded directly into the creek following
any rain, and this area gets over 40 inches per year, and MUCH more in 2017. Thus, Mathsons
22
water pollution is frequent, serious and continuing.
23
339. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish
24
and Game have determined that the affected watershed areas and named waterways are
25
beneficially used for irrigation water, wildlife drinking water, water contact and non-contact
26
recreation, fresh water habitat, protected wetlands, wildlife habitat, preservation of rare and
27 endangered species, fish migration, fish spawning, industrial service supply, navigation and sport
28 fishing.
340. As a result of the existence of the hazardous substances and other pollutants presently
deposited on and beneath plaintiffs property, and which are daily being increased further from the
continuously (24 hours/day-7 days/week) seeping and/or more rapidly trickling, meandering or
flowing toxic water emanating from the several point sources beneath Mathsons property, plaintiff
119
1
has suffered and is suffering economic losses and damages, which are presently expected to
2
continue far into the future, and certainly beyond Remingtons expected lifespan. These damages
3
include without limitation: costs incurred in testing, analyzing and monitoring the soil and
4
groundwater beneath plaintiffs property, past/present/future costs in digging-up, gathering and
5
hauling away small, liftable contaminants, and costs to thoroughly clean-up the polluted soil and
6 groundwater on both properties, plus the other more detailed damages cited at the end of this
7 environmental complaint and also at the conclusion of the RICO causes of action. In order to
8 significantly reduce the above contamination levels beneath plaintiffs property adjacent to
9 Mathsons dump, very heavy machinery, such as large excavators and/or short, strong, stable on
10 rough terrain, hydraulic cranes will be required to remove all or most of defendants above cited
huge, improperly placed pollutants, mixed-in junk and other hazardous materials. Defendants
11
contaminated fill, and the obvious public stigma of intentionally and publicly polluting a large
12
portion of Remingtons property, as well as circulating a petition about it which inferred
13
Remington caused all contamination on both sites, and also has ruined the entire community, has
14
also clearly adversely affected the monetary value and reduced the marketability of plaintiffs
15
entire parcel in an exact amount currently unknown to plaintiff. Also, by the time of trial
16 Remington will have calculated the other related emotional, general and punitive damages
17 attributable to said petition and to all of the other slanderous and false statements made by Both the
18 environmental and RICO defendants about Remington and his projects over the years in this
19 community, according to proofs.
20 341. Plaintiff is presently unable to determine the full extent of his damages from the present
21
contamination by the hazardous and other substances referenced herein, and from the likely
additional kinds of contaminates that will likely be discovered from future excavations and from
22
future tests for toxins not yet tested for, such as for organics and certain poisonous trace elements.
23
Also, the toxic substances so far detected continue to filter down through the soil daily and
24
accumulate in noticeable concentrations. Since to date, plaintiff has only done very minor hand
25
excavations with a mattock and shovel and merely observed the junk on the lands surface or
26
partially protruding from it, plaintiff believes he has clearly only seen the tip of the iceberg to date.
27 342. After future serious excavations with power machinery, which have not yet been
28 conducted, it seems obvious that additional junk, rusted-out cans of pollutants and other hazardous
materials will be discovered in the soil and/or groundwater on plaintiffs property, which will
cause plaintiff to incur future costs in testing, analysis, clean-up, excavation, removal and hauling.
It is presently unknown to what exact degree Mathsons contamination will prevent or adversely
affect the future uses, stigma and/or market value of plaintiffs property and the many affected
120
1
wildlife, despite plaintiffs best interim mitigation clean-up efforts, which have been underway for
2
many years.
3
343. Plaintiff has incurred damages in addition to the aforesaid resulting from defendants
4
conduct, which include, inter alia, permanent and continuing damage to plaintiffs land and
5
property, loss of income; loss of business opportunities; extensive labor costs, materials costs,
6 equipment operation and trucking costs; heavy machinery and other rental costs; investigative and
7 photography costs; professional fees, surveyor costs, legal fees, consultant fees and further
8 damages, and all of the other specific costs and types of damages listed below, the exact amount of
9 which is presently unknown, but which will certainly exceed the sum of $350,000 in total by the
10 time of the next trial. See also Section X below, Relief Requested, and also the cited RICO costs
and damages.
11
12
X. REMINGTON'S 2017 FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
13
As required, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations above and
14
below, from all paragraphs above, below and from the RICO statement and complaint, as if fully set
15
forth here.
16
344. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN DR080678,
17
This is a request by Remington for the federal judge to clearly interpret the previous Magistrates
18
(Vadas) Summary Judgment in the prior 2009 Federal case CV 09-4547 NJV, which Remington
19 believes has been entirely misconstrued and corruptly and falsely interpreted by defendants and Judge
20 Reinholtsen in-state case DR 080678. That Rule 37 (b) Summary Judgment was made without any
21 definite, clear, factual findings, but merely found and then stated and determined the obvious: that
22 without any experts and thus with ZERO admissible evidence, Remington could not meet any of the
23 elements of any federal cause of action. DISMISSING all Federal claims, because of no triable facts,
with ZERO FACTS actually adjudicated and actually DECIDED in a disputed facts adversarial
24
setting, with Remingtons expert evidence ALSO being weighed, was clearly legally and JUSTLY NOT
25
THE SAME as a jury or REAL trier of fact, who fully evaluated, considered and THEN adjudicating all
26
of Remingtons evidence, and whom found it deficient. HERE, in 2009-12, ONLY Remingtons federal
27
claims were dismissed due to lack of any admitted evidence. The defendants prevailed by a
28
preponderance of the evidence because zero evidence from Remington was admitted by the magistrate.
Overall Remington had a vast preponderance of the evidence, it just was not admitted due to
inadvertent, good faith and fully explained technical pro se errors by Remington. The absence of any
evidence at all was NOT determined; hence, the Magistrates principal finding and ORDER to leave

121
1
Remingtons state claims alone, for a jurys just determination based upon THE ACTUAL FACTS
2
AND EVIDENCE in state court, was significant. The magistrate did NOT want all of Remingtons
3
causes of action totally dismissed on technical, procedural pro per errors alone, otherwise he would
4
have dismissed all of Remington state claims also, which he absolutely did not do.
5
345. State Judge Reinholtsen ostensibly pretended to understand and justly interpret the 2009
6 federal case summary judgment, in the collateral estoppel proceedings, and as explained elsewhere he
7 eventually erroneously concluded that he had been wrong for the previous six years and twice denying
8 collateral estoppel, and then abruptly reversed himself in an odd, pensive and contemplative moment
9 around June 2, 2016, which to Remington inferred some sort of collusion and improper influence,
10 which has yet to be determined, and will obviously be difficult to prove it best. Begun in February 2016
and lasting 6 months, Judge Reinholtsen has not, did not and now cannot reasonably deny an
11
apparently improper second collateral estoppel, which is why the parties both desperately need this
12
declaratory interpretation of the federal Magistrate courts very ambiguous and confusing findings, IF
13
ANY findings were in fact actually made which Remington questions and denies24.
14
346. Rather, defendants self-servidly decided to interpret that dismissal merely caused by a good
15
faith pro se expert disclosure error, as a determination on the merits that Remington had no facts of
16 any kind to support his contamination actions, which were backed-up factually and visually by two
17 million pounds of hazardous and contaminated wastes piled-up here on his land, even today, 10-20
18 deep.
19 347. After thrice ruling over 5 years that NO res judicata or collateral estoppel (CE) existed here
20 State Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen abruptly yielded to unknown pressures and abruptly
21
reversed himself, based on defendants apparently entirely frivolous logic, arguments, authority and
federal summary judgment law. In his July 2016 MIL #20 ruling he amazingly managed to eliminate
22
EVERY possible contamination issue raised in Remingtons above cases by the apparent misapplication
23
of Collateral Estoppel.
24
348. Remington repeatedly alleged there, from May through August, and now here in September
25
2016 that NO ISSUES were identical between the State causes and Federal statutory causes, NOR did
26
27 24 VERY CLEARLY, under Russell v. Place, 1876, US SC, 94 U.S. 606, (and numerous later
following cases), if the issues decided at SJ are not clearly and specifically set forth in a federal
28 order, then they were NOT NECESSARILY TRIED AND DETERMINED. If the decision is
not clear on the face of the record, there can be no estoppel. An estoppel must be certain as to
every intent and nothing can be left to conjecture as to what was necessarily involved and decided
(cites). Finding 100% Collateral Estoppel in DR080678 with respect to CV 09-4547 NJV, appears
to have been fatal error, requiring an appeal or more reasonably clarification of basic Federal SJ
principles here. The magistrate did not clearly and specifically set forth any factual findings
and therefore very clearly under federal law did not make any factual findings at all.
122
1
Magistrate Vadas ever find that in his rambling, lengthy opinion plainly MARKED FOR THIS
2
MOTION ONLY ON EVERY PAGE. The Federal causes were all dismissed easily due to lack of any
3
expert evidence supporting ANY Federal cause of action element.
4
349. Magistrate Vadas dismissed all federal claims in the easiest and most efficient manner
5
possible by looking at the elements required and concluding that ZERO were met or could be met
6 under the Rule 37 (b) barring of Remingtons expert and all evidence. Clearly, nothing complex or
7 detailed was determined, just the absence of any disputed facts, and one-sided evidence which absent
8 any rebuttal were apparently a sufficient defense in that Court. Rather clearly, despite the lengthy
9 Magistrates discussions and extensive obiter dicta, NOTHING CE here was determined, nor were any
10 causes res judicata. CLARIFYING and preventative

350. This Court is now requested to clearly state exactly WHAT issues were actually
11
determined by Judge Vadas ambiguous opinion, Document 93; and then WHAT identical State
12
related issues WERE similarly determined and precluded by CE, IF ANY. Conversely, which non-
13
identical issues were NOT affected and still remain here today, to be litigated and factually
14
determined by a JURY in an adversary hearing (either HERE or in Eureka Superior Court) where
15
BOTH sides can reasonably present evidence. WE do have a HUGE amount of material and
16 conclusive EVIDENCE. We have MUCHMore, better and totally conclusive evidence of
17 contamination here, whereas all of defendants experts have been fully discredited and it is very
18 doubtful if any of them will appear to testify about anything, especially in view of their implication
19 in a conspiratorial RICO racketeering enterprise.
20 351. The Magistrates dismissal was clearly NOT on the merits after an adversarial hearing
21
and although correct and proper THERE in 2011, is not fairly, reasonably or justly CE today, while
the contamination plainly exists and the public interest and HEALTH is SUFFERING due to the
22
present loss of 50,000,000 gallons of drinking water annually that is unfit to drink or use for
23
agriculture, and much MORE in 2016-17. The law should be just and logical and at the moment
24
with massive contamination affecting the national water courses and friable asbestos blowing-up
25
onto Westgate Drive where young, old and all ages BREATH that toxic, carcinogenic air off the
26
dump, we have a presently ABSURD situation on numerous levels, relating to reality, expert tests
27 and many expert opinions based on those FACTS not an honest, NON-PREJUDICIAL pro se
28 disclosure error.
352. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION-TSCA CLAIMS FOR REMOVAL OF NAMED

TOXINS.
Remington requests An INJUNCTION (Rules 65 and 57) under TSCA (15 USC
123
1
2601-2627) to ORDER the REMOVAL of all trespassing, buried and concealed polluted materials
2
which Defendants fully admitted recently in a July-August 2016 SOL trial they DUMPED and
3
BURIED on Remingtons land in 1998 and thereafter, i.e. REMEDIATION.
4
As required, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations above, below, and
5
from through-out and from all over these three (3) volumes, as relevant to this cause of action, and
6 taken as needed from all of those other paragraphs and photos, as if fully set forth here.
7 353. Remington also requests compensation and/or reimbursement for ALL related physical,
8 emotional and monetary damages and litigation costs resulting from said Mathsons, RAO, Olson,
9 Skillings, Randalls and The Citys massive unlawful hauling, dumping, disposal, release, burial,
10 further fraudulent concealment and contemporary conspiratorial perjured cover-up of their

contaminated, polluted, and very hazardous toxic and carcinogenic materials, mixed-in with some
11
other unsuitable, unlawful and adverse substances. Said toxins include, without limitation: lead,
12
friable asbestos, fibrous Chrysotile particles, benzene vapors, degraded diesel, motor oil and
13
gasoline soaked soils and water, carcinogenic dusts and infectious bacteria, ETC.
14
354. A more comprehensive list follows below. The contaminated non-native substances in all
15
states of matter were deeply buried on and under Remingtons VERY STEEP redwood forested
16 property around 1998-2000, but said dumped debris continue to change, move under gravity, wind
17 and water forces, and to cause additional damages in soil, water and air, with varying effects and
18 continuous migrations, above and below ground, by all the methods listed herein.
19
20 355. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RULE 65 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE
21
CAA, 42 USC 7401-7671g (2000) and 15 USC 2641-2655, (for asbestos). John Aveggio of
SHNs extensive investigations and sampling of the dump area in 2010-11 and subsequent
22
discoveries by Dr. McEdwards, and Mark Ferriman, etc have revealed extensive amounts of
23
asbestos in many forms, as well as many other types of air pollutants such as benzene and led
24
vapors and airborne bacteria. Western Analytics tests of Aveggios 2010 samples revealed large
25
quantities of 20% asbestos pipe and 60% asbestos Chrysotile and several OTHER variations of
26
asbestos reinforced pipes and similar furry friable substances such as Crocidolite are inferentially
27 present here, which will be tested in the future. Since friable asbestos is mostly invisible to the
28 naked eye and is breathed into the lungs without noticing it, only solution here is to remove all of
the asbestos and other hazardous debris which deleteriously degrade air quality. Because the
asbestos is deeply buried amongst all of the other 1-2 million pounds of hazardous and
contaminated debris, the only viable solution now is to remove everything and get the asbestos at

124
1
that time. Said asbestos will need to be hand-sorted in hazmat suits and respirators, hand-bagged in
2
airtight plastic sealed bags and then properly disposed of at a licensed facility. Most of the other
3
details of the asbestos and its required removal from Remingtons property has been described
4
throughout these documents, and all pertinent references are included herein in this paragraph as
5
needed, and as consolidated at a trial. Therefore, as required, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates
6 by reference all of the necessary and relevant allegations included in the paragraphs above, and also
7 all of the other relevant paragraphs below and in the RICO and photographic volume, as if fully set
8 forth here.
9
10 356. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RULE 65 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR

EXTENSIVE CWA VIOLATIONS, under 33 USC 1251-1387 (2000).
11
As required, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the relevant allegations
12
in the paragraphs above and below, as if fully set forth here. Especially relevant or the facts and
13
allegations at IX. Above, and especially the detailed sections 329-334.
14
357. Prior to 2011 there were many informal and anecdotal observations of serious
15
hydrocarbon and metals contamination in groundwater and seepages below Mathsons dumped
16 debris, especially on Remingtons land. The County, SHN and Defendants experts and testers all
17 saw hydrocarbon sheens, odors in waters across the bottom of Remingtons land, in the swamp
18 area, Remington Creek and at test hole #1, adjacent to and only 15 below the property line and
19 IN the MAIN dumped debris themselves on Remingtons land. The creek and tanks C and D which
20 drew water from said creek all had a slight HC, diesel-like odor and the sediment on the bottom of
21
tank D had a strong such odor. Remington and Aveggio testified to that fact.
358. The Stevens Ecology water tests in 2009 confirmed and calibrated those results
22
numerically, confirming a vast array of hydrocarbon gasoline, diesel and motor oil components plus
23
many other adverse substances listed below.
24
359. Subsequently there have been many other consistent and independently sampled water
25
tests done, chronologically: 1) The absolutely conclusive stick test done by ALL defendants
26
experts simultaneously- Ferriman, Gwinn and Gans, where they stuck a stick in test hole #1
27 (previously part of the Stevens and other county and related anecdotal observations) and hurriedly
28 discarded it when it smelled strongly of diesel-like hydrocarbon derivatives. HOWEVER, we all
smelled it first, and noted the presence of hydrocarbons well-above the smell threshold; 2) The
extensive, thorough August 1-2, 2011 water tests by John Aveggio showing strong positives for
diesel, motor oil and some gasoline components in test holes #1, #2 and #3, IN the dump itself or
directly below it in the swamp areas; 3) The Humboldt County, Maje Hoyos water and soil tests for
125
1
hydrocarbons in 3 different areas, never tested previously, which resulted in positive readings for
2
hydrocarbons, including one test VERY HIGH, in the swamp area where most subterranean water
3
flowing beneath the dump appears to flow into.
4
360. The above are all NEW test results, NOT part of the 2009 Federal action, and prove
5
continuing and varying contamination of all surface and subterranean waters flowing off or beneath
6 the dumped debris. Here, we only seek damages and remediation costs for the past THREE (3)
7 years, i.e. from about October 2013 to 2016, and all expense involved with removing the hazardous
8 substances which exude said hydrocarbons and the other toxins complained of (from lead and
9 asbestos fibers to lethal iron concentrations and infectious/epidemic levels of ecoli/coliform and
10 related fecal bacterial readings.

361. Defendants, and all of them specifically violated of CWA 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 33
11
U.S.C. 1342 (a) and (b), 33 U.S.C. 1311 (Discharge of Pollutants from Point Sources to
12
United States Waters Without a NPDES Permit), as follows in the next three paragraphs:
13
362. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the CWA as evidenced by their
14
multiple discharges from five (5) different water point sources without a NPDES Permit in
15
violation of CWA 301, 33 U.S.C. 1311. They are also violating the States Basin Plan, do not
16 have a California General Industrial Storm Water Permit, are not monitoring their contaminated
17 storm water discharges and routinely violate the CWAs prohibition against the discharge of
18 contaminated storm water and non-storm water pollutants from their property into United States
19 waters.
20 363. Plaintiff contends the violations by defendants alleged herein are ongoing and will
21
continue after the filing of this complaint. Plaintiff alleges herein that there are likely to be
additional daily violations by defendants and also additional kinds of toxins dispersed by
22
defendants that are likely to be newly discovered before trial of this matter when additional kinds
23
of toxins are tested for, but for which no data or laboratory reports may then exist or now exist
24
prior to the filing of this complaint. In that event, plaintiff will file additional amended complaints
25
if necessary to address defendants possible new and broader state and federal violations which
26
may occur or be discovered by more diverse tests after the filing of this complaint. Each of
27 defendants past and present daily violations is a separate violation of the CWA.
28 364. Plaintiff avers and believes and on such belief alleges that without the imposition of
appropriate civil penalties and the issuance of appropriate equitable relief, defendants will continue
to violate the CWA as well as other related county, state and federal standards with respect to the
enumerated discharges and releases. Plaintiff further avers and believes and on such belief alleges
that the relief requested in this complaint will redress the injury to plaintiff and the adjacent
126
1
community, prevent future injuries, and protect both of their interests which are or may be
2
adversely affected by the defendants violations of the CWA, as well as the other cited state and
3
federal standards.
4
5
365. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RULE 65 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
6 FOR SDWA VIOLATIONS, 42 USC 300f-300j-26.
7 As required, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the above and below
8 paragraphs, as if fully set forth here.
9 366. Each of these individual statutes provide slightly different relief and/or overlapping relief and
10 in any event most of these allegations and statutory authorities are NEW, and have never been
asserted by Remington. The duplicative statutes from 2009 (CWA, CERCLA and RCRA) are all
11
based entirely on the ALL NEW 2010-11 important material facts developed by all experts in the case
12
long AFTER any material filings in the 2009 case. Said Federal case essentially had no important
13
federally relevant material input (or any very significant data from Remingtons land really) prior to
14
2011, or before all evidence from Remington was essentially LOCKED OUT OF ALL
15
PROCEEDINGS by the Magistrate in August 2011. The Magistrate canceled all oral PO proceedings
16 and/or SJ hearings and made-up his mind to send Remingtons case back to state court. Hence, there
17 were NO pre-trial motions, no opportunity to amend Remingtons complaint (to add asbestos or any
18 of the salient factual allegations herein) and no way to augment any expert witness lists. The
19 Magistrate thus FROZE the first 2009 Federal case completely, telegraphed early that it was OVER,
20 and effectively TERMINATED all substantive proceedings around mid-August, exactly when
21
Remingtons most significant evidence was developed and just after the important July 2011 expert
depositions were held and their significance became known and understood. Environmental SHN
22
expert Aveggio refuted ALL defendants testing and logic on July 1, 2011, which would have led to a
23
January trial victory for Remington, however the magistrate was NOT interested and had already
24
decided that Gans LIES were the truth and that Remington and SHN were the liars! Not yet a RICO
25
enterprise, but Gans corrupt mischaracterizations and slanderous accusations began in August 2011
26
and quickly led to summary judgment when the magistrate fell under his spell. Two years of
27 Aveggios contientious work pertinent to the state and federal cases was thus lost because Remington
28 did not think any further disclosures were needed (to the irritating Gans, deliberately provoked a
personality conflict with Remington at that time), after 200+ Aveggio SWORN testimonial pages, and
110% of his Federal testimony, were already in the state and federal records, but the Magistrate
disagreed. Gans never took Aveggios deposition in the Federal case because he was planning to
TRICK Remington (and the magistrate and succeeded, on both counts) and already had 100+% of all
127
1
Aveggios federal and state trial testimony. In other words, Remington assumed that based on the
2
magistrates orders, all discovery was interchangeable between the state and federal cases, and hence
3
Remington felt writing a two-page summary of Aveggios work under Rule 26 was redundant,
4
inefficient and unnecessary, BECAUSE Gans already had that information multiplied by about 50.
5
That grave strategic error by Remington and total misreading of the magistrates blind adherence
6 to Rule 26, disdain for Pro per Remington and his blind and misplaced belief in Gans material false
7 statements and mischaracterizations, quickly cost Remingtons first federal case and now Judge
8 Reinholtsen is bought into it to try to discard Remington state case DR 080678, because you just does
9 not have the time to deal with it or the motivation to fully understand the California contamination
10 case precedents, or as inferred herein he is hopelessly biased in favor of the Mitchell firm, which
causes him to be prejudiced against Remington. None of that is presently proven, but hopefully the
11
relevant investigatory authorities will determine or attempt to determine the extent that Judge
12
Reinholtsen is beholden to the Mitchell firms leadership, right now or in a few years when he will
13
probably rejoin them. The latter will be the ultimate test we will be watching carefully for in future
14
years.
15
16 367. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SUCCESSIVE RCRA VIOLATIONS AND

17 ABATEMENT, 42 USC 6901-6992 (k), specifically 42 U.S.C. 6972 (a) (1) (A) 7002, etc.
18 Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations, in all of the paragraphs
19 in volume I and volume II, as if fully set forth here.
20 RCRA 7002 (a) (1) (A), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (a) (1) (A) permits an action against any person
21
who violates a PERMIT, STANDARD or REGULATION pursuant to RCRA. Civil penalties may
be assessed against any person or entity in violation of this section, under provisions of 42 U.S.C.
22
6928 (a) and (g). All of this paragraph applies fully to defendants since 1998.
23
368. Defendants storage and mishandling of large quantities of unlawful pollutants,
24
contaminants and hazardous materials, defined as hazardous wastes under RCRA, in this rural,
25
pristine, residential wilderness setting, resulted in and caused the felony discharges of hazardous
26
wastes to Remingtons soil and groundwater, as described above, in violation of regulations
27 regarding the use and disposal of hazardous wastes, RCRA 3004 (d), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (d),
28 [RCRA Section 9002 (a), 42 U.S.C. 6991 (a)].
369. Plaintiff avers and believes and on such belief alleges that without the imposition of
appropriate penalties and the issuance of appropriate equitable relief, defendants will continue to
violated a PERMIT, STANDARD or REGULATION pursuant to the RCRA, specifically RCRA
3004 (d), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (d).
128
1
370. Defendants, and all of their, violations of 42 U.S.C. 6972 (a) (1) (B).
2
RCRA 7002 (a) (1) (B), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (a) (1) (B), provides that any person, such as
3
REMINGTON herein, may commence a civil action against any person or governmental entity
4
including a past or present generator, transporter, owner, or operator of a treatment, storage or
5
disposal facility who has contributed to the past or present handling, storage, treatment,
6 transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and
7 substantial endangerment to health or to the environment.
8 371. Defendants still own today and operate today a waste disposal and storage site and are
9 responsible for having transporting over one thousand tons of the contaminants, listed above, to
10 their unpermitted and very unlawful residential dump site, a substantial amount of which were also
deliberately dumped onto, carefully sorted and placed there and then systematically BURIED
11
below ground where they were undetectable visually. Then defendants skillfully, carefully,
12
conspiratorially and clandestinely further concealed said hazardous toxins, using and including
13
without limitation, under dense brush, redwood needles, large redwood stumps, logs and branches
14
plus gravel and other benign materials, on and beneath plaintiffs adjacent land.
15
372. Defendants have stored these contaminants, including the numerous cited dangerous
16 pollutants and hazardous materials in a careless, dangerous, illegal and reckless manner which has
17 allowed them to leach, dissolve and otherwise be absorbed into the groundwater, surface waters
18 and soil directly onto and beneath both defendants and plaintiffs properties and also to
19 contaminate portions of plaintiffs property as far as 30-feet away, directly below the dump site,
20 and also to contaminate the adjacent creek which parallels the property line and is only about 30-
21
50 linear feet from the dump itself, and about 30-100 below it.
373. Many of the pollutants and substances listed above are known to be hazardous to the
22
environment if released into the environment in sufficient quantity to pose an imminent and
23
substantial risk. SUFFICIENT QUANTITY of various hazardous RCRA materials HAS BEEN
24
released onto Remingtons land and into the creek such that John Aveggio of SHN in his last
25
administrative act in these cases (before his death from various toxins and poisons) declared
26
THERE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL imminent threat to the environment here from fecal
27 bacteria, asbestos and concentrated hydrocarbons (see A-130, in Aveggios handwriting, in all SJ
28 Appendices in 5 state SJ motions, and many amended complaints).
374. For purposes of RCRA, lead, ASBESTOS, CHRYSOTILE, benzene, toluene, boron,
manganese, copper, zinc extracted nickel, strontium, arsenic, magnesium, polychlorinated biphenyls,
raw sewage, silica and asphalt dusts and sub-microscopic particles, calcium silicates, ecoli/coliform,
etc. SLUDGES, and the other poisons named, in the concentrations present are cumulatively solid
129
1
waste and hazardous waste within the meaning of the statute. All of the approximately 10,000
2
pages of CV 094547 NJV, are hereby incorporated by reference with respect to the toxins discovered
3
on Remingtons portion of the dump. Nearly all of the rest is also relevant and still valid, except as to
4
the point sources which in 2008-9 had not yet proven the facts stated above about the twin 6-inch
5
pipes. Gans and defendants had fraudulently misrepresented their water test on those pipes, and
6 Remington and his experts had reasonably relied on those results until approximately September
7 2011, when we began realizing that defendants had misrepresented all of their soil and water tests,
8 and defrauded both the state and federal judges.
9 375. Several of these above chemicals, elements and their resulting compounds formed in
10 combination with the environment and the other contaminants in Mathsons dump are known
carcinogens and/or reproductive toxins (e.g. toluene, silica dusts and benzene), others are
11
obviously familiar deadly poisons (e.g. lead, arsenic, manganese, and iron, in the HIGH
12
concentration in waters here, etc.) and if released into the environment in sufficient quantity or
13
under the right conditions could pose an imminent and substantial threat to public health and to
14
the environment in general. And, in fact, as above, that imminent threat threshold was surpassed
15
between June and August 2011, as to Aveggios testing, knowledge and sworn testimony, which
16 was a major CHANGE and CRUCIAL NEW MATERIAL FACT ABSENT IN THE PREVIOUS
17 RCRA INTERVAL, from about 2006-9, before most of the above were discovered and
18 scientifically measured.
19 376. Plaintiff NOW alleges that based on his experts laboratory testing to date, the FINAL
20 written opinion of Aveggio cited above (A-130, and elsewhere) before his death, Maje Hoyos
21
work and testimony and the expert opinions of Dr. McEdwards, the amounts of the above
hazardous materials released by defendants from their illegal storage facility and dump now are in
22
sufficient quantity, poisonous compositions and concentrations to pose an imminent and substantial
23
risk to both the environment (and to all living things within it) and including human health, and
24
therefore need to be removed. During the years after the above paragraph was substantially
25
drafted, Remington has several times been rendered nearly terminally ill and been hospitalized
26
(2015) without any improvement, based on known toxic exposures to the bacterial, viral fungal
27 and submicroscopic airborne toxins and pathogens in the dump beginning around 2014, when
28 something there has become drastically more contagious and life-threatening, to Remington.
377. As discussed above, approximately 95% of all Remingtons admissible, primary trial
evidence, applicable to RCRA and ALL causes of action, in BOTH cases (state and federal) was
discovered, developed, articulated and understood AFTER August 2011, and after the Magistrate
had already torpedoed Remingtons federal case and set it on fire, like a kamikaze attack. As above,
130
1
the Magistrate was improperly deceived by Gans lies and mischaracterizations so had decided to
2
kick Remington back down to state court before any material evidence from SHN, the asbestos tests
3
or the County ever reached his court. There is no doubt however that the magistrate knew and
4
believe Remington had a viable case in the state court and he went to great lengths to order that at
5
three different stages of the litigation. It would appear, that he did not think Remingtons case arose
6 to the stature of a federal case, worthy of his eminent attention, and felt that all issues could be
7 justly resolved in State Court. Remington also had concluded that himself in 2011 and hence did
8 not seriously prosecute the federal case, which is another reason why collateral estoppel applied in
9 state court is unjust, improper and inequitable under numerous federal cases which have
10 commented on that exact issue.

378. Therefore, in August and September 2011 Remington just frantically tried to put-out the
11
fire (topside) and repair the gapping holes below, failing at both tasks, and also could not regain the
12
Magistrates confidence or get the engine started on his ship. The fire was extinguished and the
13
torpedo holes were partially patched, so Remingtons ship could limp slowly on towards port in
14
the 9th Circuit, however the massive damage was done, and the war was OVER already, without any
15
portion of Remingtons and SHNs evidence ever reaching the Federal Courts. What Remington had
16 believed to be a UNITED STATES NAVY ship, suddenly had been turned into an alien Japanese
17 (broken down pro per) ship by the Magistrate, and by the time Remington limped into a port,
18 the main war was OVER and LOST, but for the fruitless complaining about the unjust applications
19 of Rule 26 and Rule 37 (b) in the Ninth Circuit.
20 379. THIS complaint is a new battle and a new successive action war, based only on
21
damages and the known remediation costs calculated over the past 3-years as based on SHNs RAP
plan from June 2011. The remediation costs for any 3-year period are essentially quite similar,
22
however other types of damages and costs vary greatly, especially as to PHYSICAL INJURIES,
23
and which Renz (Renz v. 33rd District Agricultural (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 61, 66-69) period a court
24
elects to calculate damages in. Under the respected and followed Renz decision, potentially a
25
plaintiff can overcome the Spaulding v. Cameron, Supra difficulties, profoundly articulated by
26
Justice Traynor and the obvious inconveniences (and a lot more) of having to file multiple suits,
27 because under Renz, damages for a wider period can be recovered all in one lawsuit, potentially
28 through trial, and all appeals. In case it is unclear, Remington urges this and all relevant courts to
apply Renz to any decision here so that these cases can be decided in one future contamination trial
and not require another 10 or more independent successive action lawsuits, by Remington and his
heirs.

131
1
380. SEVENTH CONTINUING, SUCCESSIVE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CERCLA
2
VIOLATIONS, 42 USC 9601-9662+ and CFR 302.4, etc.
3
Specifically, defendants have violated Sections 103 (a) (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9603 (a); 40
4
C.F.R. 302.6 (a) & 302.4, 42 U.S.C. 9659 (a) (1) for many years and CONTINUE to violate
5
same today.
6 381. Once again, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations above, as if
7 fully set forth here, plus all of the other allegations in all three volumes.
8 382. Defendants have discharged high concentrations of several of the CERCLA and 40 CFR
9 302.4 listed (above, and in more detail in the CV 094547 NJV documents included by reference
10 previously) hazardous materials onto plaintiffs property which inferentially exist in equal or greater
concentrations beneath their own property, which is beyond the scope here of this suit.
11
383. It is presently unknown and will require further testing to determine precisely to what
12
extent these high concentrations of toxins all over plaintiffs previously pristine land, and up to 300
13
feet away from and below Mathsons dump, correlate with the correspondingly large quantities of
14
those toxins in the measured, sampled portions of Mathsons dump, now ON Remingtons land and
15
across the Pulley survey line. The inferences are clear, however extensive, costly future independent
16 drilling, testing, investigations and monitoring on Mathsons land, in the heretofore so-called
17 disputed areas on Remingtons side of the present fence, and also on plaintiffs adjacent and
18 connecting property, both in and beyond the visual extremities of the landfill, are now required.
19 384. Clearly the CERCLA/CFR threshold amounts for some of these hazardous materials have
20 been exceeded, i.e., for lead, benzene, asbestos, Chrysotile, silica, asphalt, calcium silicates and
21
polychlorinated biphenyls, without limitation, and likely others. Those cited are multiple violations of
CERCLA.
22
385. Plaintiff is a United States citizen, and therefore has the rights of any citizen to sue under
23
CERCLA on behalf of the public for redress and for a clean-up of Mathsons dump, and therefore,
24
HE DOES THAT AGAIN HEREIN.
25
386. CERCLA relief for additional toxins and costs, for asbestos and non-hydrocarbon
26
contaminants, to the extent they do not duplicate other relief or are actually NEEDED here, are
27 requested here. Cumulatively a jury should find defendants GUILTY on all counts of pollution and
28 then Remingtons rather complex damages (varying as to each 3-year period, and modified under
Renz) can be individually calculated, estimated and/or negotiated in a lump sum resolution.
387. Alternatively, it would be costly for defendants to prove, expertly argue and ATTEMPT TO
REFUTE all of Remingtons 40+ listed types of damages and costs. Perhaps it would be foolish to
spend another $50-250,000 resolving all the complex indemnities, rents, benefits to the Mathsons of
132
1
having Remington provide free foundational support for their property, triple trespass damages,
2
physical injury and punitive damages, ETC. However, that is the track they and we are now on,
3
which will still take many more years to resolve and end. Happily, Remington has the time, money and
4
perseverance to prosecute these cases to a just conclusion.
5
6 388. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: GANS AND DEFENDANTS VIOLATIONS OF

7 THE VWPA OF 1982, 18 USC 1512-15.
8 The Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 created a federal civil cause of action
9 authorizing a United States District Court to restrain the harassment of crime victims and witnesses
10 or to prevent and restrain existing or imminent violations of 18 USC 1512, and 1513, excluding
those consisting of misleading conduct. Although a government attorney is ultimately responsible
11
for bringing such an action under 1514, and sets out the manner in which such an attorney can
12
obtain either a temporary or permanent restraining or protective order, in the instant case,
13
Remington is both acting as his own attorney general, for now, under a variety of proper federal and
14
state statutes, and also actively dealing with criminal authorities as this document is being read
15
and therefore this cause of action is made in anticipation of future activities by such, as applied
16 specifically, so far, to Foget, Figas, Tidwell, Foget, Bruce and Suzanne Remington, in others
17 expected to be discovered shortly. Remington has alleged all of the elements of these crimes in the
18 RICO statement, included in this paragraph by reference as well as all other paragraphs in both
19 volumes I and II. After additional discovery, and some minimal cooperation and possibly assistance
20 from federal and/or County criminal authorities, we should be able to prove all of them.
21
389. 1512. Defendants specific violations under the following specific subsection numbers
of 1512, are as follows:
22
(a) (2) (A): Defendants, and many of them as described in the detailed RICO statement,
23
threatened the use of physical force to influence, delay and prevent the testimony and other related
24
activities of Foget, Figas and Remington, and all three of the above allegations applied to the first
25
two named witnesses;
26
390. (a) (2) (B) (ii): The same above identified defendants also caused, induced or otherwise
27 (altered, destroyed, mutilated and/or concealed an object with intent to impair the integrity or
28 availability of an evidentiary object which was being used or anticipated to be used in an official
proceeding. Specifically, this allegation pertains, without limitation to: Gans, John Mathson,
Skillings and Kishpaugh with respect to the investigations and testimony of Remington, Dr.
McEdwards, Bruckner, Clemans and Hoyos, among others;

133
1
391. (b): The above described defendants listed in the RICO statement also knowingly used
2
intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasions, misleading conduct, and/or also attempted to do all of
3
those improper actions or conduct, with intent to:
4
(1) Influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
5
(2) Said above defendants, especially Gans as complained of in the RICO statement, but also
6 many of the others, also caused or induced witnesses on both sides of this case to:
7 (A) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document or other object from an official
8 proceeding, which proceedings here included the 2016 SOL trial, the imminent 2017 state
9 contamination trial, and the one here;
10 (B) Alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal an object with the intent to impair the objects
integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. Here, that most specifically relates to
11
Gans, Mathsons and other defendants intentional destruction, removal and spoliation of evidence
12
on Remingtons side of the fence, which evidence has been fully photographed and documented for
13
10-years, and therefore the exact degree of mutilation, destruction, removal or concealment of many
14
significant evidentiary objects can be fully-documented with still and video photography;
15
392. (c) Many of the above defendants as specifically named in the RICO statement,
16 themselves corruptly:
17 (1) Altered, destroyed, mutilated and/or concealed other objects, or attempted to do so
18 with the intent to impair the objects integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. This
19 allegation applies most particularly to John Mathson and Russell Gans who are seen on video
20 violating the statute, but inferentially applies to Skillings, Kishpaugh, Randall, Gwinn, Hillyard,
21
Ferriman and likely several others according to discovered proofs;
393. (d) The said defendants named in the RICO statement also intentionally harassed,
22
without limitation: Figas, Foget, Aveggio, Remington, Hoyos, Bruckner, Dr. McEdwards and
23
others, which resulted in hindering their work, delays, preventions and/or dissuasions from some of
24
the aboves physical attending or testifying at an official proceeding, or affecting their presentation
25
therefore, both previously and going forward.
26
394. 1513. Remington further alleges that the various named defendants in the RICO
27 statement as particularly described each knowingly engaged in conduct which damaged the
28 tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against that
person for attending the trial as a witness or providing any testimony or other object as a
witness at an official proceeding, or for providing information related to the commission or possible
commission of a federal offense such as those alleged in the RICO statement. Specifically, as
described at length in the RICO statement, this allegation refers primarily to Skillings, Gans and
134
1
Olsons intimidation, coercion and extortion of and threats against Bob Figas over several years and
2
similar threats, retaliation and worse specific violent and destructive actions and crimes, as
3
described against Remington and some of his other experts, which were named.
4
395. 1514 (d). Although somewhat premature on the record existing today in federal court, in
5
the state court there has been considerable harassment of victims and witnesses as explained in the
6 RICO statement, and in order to be consistent with that record Gans and his RICO enterprise
7 leadership are going to need to be consistent and to block the testimony of Remington, Figas, Hoyos,
8 Clemans, Dr. McEdwards and all others who oppose the enterprises totally corrupt, purported defense.
9 396. At the proper time, Remington or a suitable attorney for the government will apply for a
10 temporary restraining order under this statute. In that regard, under (d): the term course of conduct
means a series of harassing acts of Remington and his witnesses over a period of time indicating a
11
continuity of purpose. Harassment has been fully perpetuated here by defendants it means a serious
12
act or course of conduct directed at Remington and is named witnesses which cause substantial
13
emotional distress and serve no other legitimate purpose. John Mathson, Gans, Skillings et al all
14
harassed Remington and his witnesses under the statute and went beyond that to include under (d) (1)
15
(C) all of Remingtons immediate family members, including his three young granddaughters; Under
16 (D) defendants also intimidated all of the above named Remington Associates and is described in the
17 RICO statement specifically caused severe fear and apprehension in all of the above named associates,
18 but especially in his three granddaughters; and, none of the defendants intimidating actions served any
19 legitimate purpose beyond intimidation, extortion, sadism and/or the attempt to make Remingtons
20 family unhappy and to drive them away from this community.
21
397. 1515. (1) Under these statutes, the term official proceeding means a proceeding before
a federal court or United States magistrate judge only, which here includes Remingtons prior federal
22
case CV 09 4547 NJV and this case, which within two weeks of discoverys inception will necessitate
23
involving all of the corruption and misleading conduct, which will be required by Gans to be
24
consistent with the state corruption and RICO objectives;
25
398. (3) (A) Similarly, the term misleading conduct means knowingly making a false
26
statement which in the state cases, and therefore in order to be consistent in the federal case, Gans and
27 his RICO writings and generalship will need to imminently begin making false statements here, which
28 from time to time will be a majority of all of their oral and written statements;
399. (3) (B) Gans in most of his prior federal case statements, from 2010-14 also intentionally
omitted information from every statement if it were to favor Remington for his activities in any
manner. For example, pages 532-553 of the RICO statement outlined many of Gans federal court
transgressions but did not yet get into full detail regarding ALL of his corrupt deceptions at the very
135
1
beginning of the appellate process where he attempted to block Remingtons appeal On the false and
2
intentionally misrepresented grounds that it was not timely and made under the wrong statute and on
3
several other improper and frivolous grounds, which were all easily rejected by the Ninth Circuit.
4
400. In the 9th Circuit pre-brief motion activity lasting 3-6 months, Remington went about five
5
for five against Gans corrupt and improper oppositions, however, all of that took an emotional toll and
6 a lot of Remingtons time and energy. Gans made an all-out attempt to block Remingtons Ninth
7 Circuit appeal and opening brief for many months, with a campaign of nearly total deception, mostly
8 misleading statements and direct flagrant misrepresentations of the filing dates, times, manner and
9 statutes under which Remington filed his reconsideration documents originally before the appeal, all
10 of which made Remingtons life difficult, as any deliberate criminal acts are likely to do to the victim.
401. That is Gans primary and maybe only modus operandi: presenting technicalities and
11
frivolous obstacles to Remingtons just contamination case because he has no valid scientific or moral
12
defense to it and therefore he absolutely must attempt to end it on very frivolous and purely technical
13
grounds (as explained in the above cited RICO statement pages), or possibly valid legal grounds
14
such as the statute of limitations25, collateral estoppel or summary adjudication, or as a last resort by
15
criminal RICO racketeering activity and objectives as explained in the RICO statement; but, in any
16 event there is no way Gans can try his defense on the merits. If this court forces same, it will not get to
17 the courtroom.
18 402. Likewise, Gans and the Enterprises essentially continuous misleading conduct is intended
19 to do many corrupt purposes including concealing all true and important material facts and thereby
20 creating the false impression that Remingtons evidence is inadequate and that his is conclusive and
21
important. What is misleading there is that the RICO enterprise really has no scientific information
from Remingtons property at all, because they never made even a single intentional test there. Their
22
stick test was stupid and unintentional and but is now among the most important case facts, because
23
it was the only scientific test which defendants experts ever conducted here, because they could
24
see that everywhere they looked or walked was contaminated.
25
26 25. However, as made clear in the RICO statement, Gans perverts all of his theoretically sound legal
grounds such as the statute of limitations, by suborning perjury among five (5) well-coached ordinary Eureka
27
witnesses with good jury rapport, to win that argument. On the merits, the truth and the accurate historical
28 facts, Gans has no chance on any of these issues. Similarly, obviously collateral estoppel is a valid doctrine if
applied honestly and correctly to the actual case facts. Here defendants did not do that and grossly perverted
the magistrates order and lack of any established facts, just as they did in plagiarizing his original order into
their own self-serving fraudulent words. As partially explained elsewhere, Gans intentionally misread and
misinterpreted federal and state law related to collateral estoppel and thoroughly deceived there ex-law partner
Judge Reinholtsen who is too busy and un-cerebral to fully fathom the almost infinite complexities and
nebulous legal precedents of when and how to apply collateral estoppel in a just manner when absurd and
obviously unfair results are derived from a first impression on whether or how to apply collateral estoppel.
136
1
403. (3) (C) Defendants blatant misleading conduct went far-beyond the above in all cases
2
and extended to Brisso, Plotz and McBride in their flagrantly and continuously misrepresented
3
motion documents, which here, to cite one example only would involve Gans summary judgment
4
miss- quotations of the federal magistrate in his collateral estoppel documents. Simply put, as
5
described elsewhere, involving hundreds of mostly SWORN pages, Gans blatantly and
6 fraudulently plagiarized the magistrates written order, by literally rewriting the last 12-words
7 of a crucially MATERIAL sentence wherein Gans deleted the magistrates words and added his own
8 totally different meaning words which deceitfully favored his own case. That attempted Gans
9 fraud on two different courts was perpetrated on two judges that were too busy, unmotivated and
10 biased against a pro per litigant for them to have time to actually locate and study all of the source
documents to prove that Gans/Plotz fraud, so they never really understood the gravity or corrupt
11
ethical-disbarment level significance of that issue. Remington of course was all over the fraud for
12
many dozens of pages, mostly sworn under penalty of perjury, but did not put it succinct or clear
13
enough to convince a biased court of what was true and/or just. It is also very possible that if the
14
court was truly biased and prejudiced by that point there is nothing that Remington could have said
15
or done that would have altered Judge Reinholtsens predetermined biased judgment in favor of his
16 former law partners, Gans and Brisso. When an officer of the court, no matter how deceitful and
17 corrupt, states (Gans never DECLARES anything) that the magistrate had ordered something, said
18 officer of the court always has the default position as being honest and truthful, and if a pro per is
19 involved in the issue, that said situation is multiplied by 5-25! Here, what Gans and Plotz have been
20 saying and declaring in state court, especially since 2012 during their RICO conspiracy reign, is
21
usually far from the truth. Even after Remington fully exposes defendants RICO lies ann frauds,
then getting some kind of emotional response, admonishment of said officers of Judge
22
Reinholtsens court, let alone any punishment from a Humboldt County state court is essentially
23
impossible, under the present Humboldt County judicial conditions. It would not be hyperbolic to
24
say that basically the Mitchell firm, as led by the alleged RICO defendants named herein,
25
essentially control and run Humboldt County government and the court systems, by means of
26
Brissos being the active County Counsel most of the time here. Further, it is not helpful to
27 Remington that Judge Reinholtsen worked for about 20 years side-by-side with Remingtons
28 present nemesis here, Brisso and Gans, and therefore to allege that the Mitchell firm runs this
town is sad but generally true. That is why Remington had to leave Humboldt County, and
return to federal court because justice up here is probably impossible for Remington.
Therefore, Remington urges this court to hear and adjudicate these cases, despite all of the
RICO enterprises upcoming arguments to dismiss this case;
137
1
404. (3) (D) Additionally, when we do get into this federal court and also previously in
2
Magistrate Vadas court in CV 09 4547 NJV, cans well-established misleading conduct has been
3
intended to mislead by knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a map, photograph or boundary
4
mark or other object that is misleading in at least one or more material respects; and
5
405. (a) (3) (E): Finally, last but not least, Gans and the Enterprises leadership misleads all
6 litigants and courts, such as this court, by knowingly using a trick, scheme or device with intent to
7 mislead. It took Remington several years to analyze and notice the consistent corrupt
8 patterns in defendants motion documents and especially the false logic syllogisms set-up with
9 Gans false conclusion backed up by one or more false premises usually including at least one or
10 more truthful one and one or more false ones which inevitably lead to a false conclusion. Gans is a
master at that technique, as discussed above, and whatever you see the phrases obviously or it is
11
self-evident, it is clear, etc., that means that Gans has no evidence, he is attempting to prey on
12
the local courts fear of being perceived as stupid or not in full factual or Supreme Court
13
precedential grasp of the situation, and in short, in those situations Gans conclusion is based on
14
false premise logic. If any of the premises of the syllogism are flawed or false, any conclusion
15
which depends on that false premise or sequence of logic will always be wrong to some extent and
16 at least inaccurate and fatally flawed as characterized in the conclusion by the sophist. Mr. PLOTZ
17 also frequently uses that false premise (leading inevitably to deliberately deceitful or deceptive
18 false conclusions) logic, but inferentially and presumably it is Gans final edits which complete the
19 very artful false logic that is always used to refute essentially any important or crucial position that
20 Remington takes, with obvious very misleading intent. The other major corrupt and fraudulent
21
device that the RICO enterprise attorneys have used frequently lately is in their case citations,
where they cite the most famous Supreme Court and appellate decisions in the contamination
22
precedent literature, but then skip most of the important relevant teaching. For example, they have
23
recently frequently cited to Beck v. Southern (1996) 44 Cal App. 4Th 1160, 1216-17 to prove what
24
damages Remington can recover under continuing nuisance and trespass. At least three (3) times
25
now, IN WRITING, they have tried to deceive Remington and the court with the proposition that he
26
can only recover loss of use damages under that case, whereas said case clearly, obviously and
27 very emphatically adds that REMEDIATION damages are also recoverable, in a provable
28 continuing action. In other words, Gans intentionally leaves out that crucial, material and hugely
significant fact of remediation, which in this case is arguably 80-90% of Remingtons damages,
and in any event is a very significant portion of them which Gans is hoping the court, Judge
Reinholtsen, who is their former old, very long-time, very loyal law partner, will omit or discount.
Those types of grave and very intentional deceptions are primarily aimed at Judge Reinholtsen, who
138
1
is already believed to have been fatally influenced and probably hopelessly duped by that citation
2
and others. That successful fraudulent deception by Gans and Plotz would be despite Remingtons
3
frequent and emphatic oral arguments to the contrary, where Remington very frequently singles-
4
out and emotionally disparages defendants very blatant and corrupt litigatory practices. But, a pro
5
per in a rather obviously biased court, who slowly, emphatically and emotionally reads from the
6 relevant Supreme Court orders, law and controlling dicta, unfortunately rarely can prevail in these
7 Humboldt County courts. Remington is treated with great personal courtesy here, but his
8 arguments and law are improperly and unjustly ignored. Therefore higher courts in urban areas need
9 to be sought.
10
406. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FALSE CLAIMS ACTS VIOLATIONS, 31
11
USC 3729 (a) (1) (A) & (G) - 3733, et seq. [As above, all relevant allegations in all of the other
12
paragraphs in these complaints are included herein by reference, if needed to substantiate or explain
13
part of this cause of action].
14
Defendants in both portions of this lawsuit are known to have presented false or fraudulent
15
claims for payment or approval to various governments of all levels including the City of Eureka.
16 Such fraudulent claims would include, without limitation of course, the understatement of County,
17 state and federal taxes by virtue of defendants providing false records and statements material to
18 such transactions, here specifically by RAO and all its employees both named and so far unnamed,
19 and also John Mathson, relative to their illicit dumping projects in the 1990s and 2000s.
20 Understatement of County business property and real estate related taxes, plus the assumed and
21
partially known under-payment of such taxes would be a violation of (a) (1) D), among other
numerous statutes. Additionally, defendants have made false claims to Remington and also to
22
Farmers Insurance company with resulting consequences according to future proofs.
23
407. This cause of action can be construed as a qui tan lawsuit, where Remington is a civil
24
whistleblower.
25
408. During the extensive and intensive future Discovery, now in preparation, or likely sooner,
26
Remington will provide information to the government including the city of Eureka and Humboldt
27 County about how RAO bilked-them out of substantial sums of money with their short-haul scheme
28 for hauling hazardous materials to Mathsons instead of Eastern California or Nevada, plus the other
understated taxes alluded to in paragraph 406, among other topics. Remington also has additional
information regarding said defendants, including the RICO defendants fraud, corruption and related
illegal activity which to date has cost all of the various types of governments substantial sums of

139
1
money. Remington will be the relator in these subsequent lawsuits which may at some point become
2
separate from this one, to name just one of such subsequent possibilities.
3
4
409. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A RULE 65 INJUNCTION TO ORDER
5
MATHSON TO ERECT A NEEDED DUMP RETAINING WALL.
6 Introduction: Under the Supplemental Authority of Rule 65, 18 USC 1367, a retaining
7 wall is needed NOW, along the property line between Remingtons northern border and Mathsons
8 southern border to prevent landslides of hazardous materials onto Remingtons land during the
9 remediation, now expected to begin in summer 2017 to block the present and imminent additional
10 slides and erosion of hazardous materials further down onto Remingtons lands and to support the
new agreed fence along Pulley line (now prematurely being built WRONG). It is obvious to an
11
engineer and expert in the excavation field, which Remington is, that when we excavate defendants
12
hazardous wastes from Remingtons land which are 8-15 feet deep at the property line across the
13
main dump area, a vertical excavation at the property line will destabilize the 15-foot deep of debris
14
directly up the mountain from that remedial excavation, which were supported by (and are today)
15
the large volumes of material which we intend to excavate. Right now, there are more than 500 yd.
16 supporting Mathsons yard and other illegally dumped materials presently on his own land, and it is
17 those materials which need to be stabilized in order to prevent another several hundred yards of
18 hazardous materials from collapsing further onto Remingtons land.
19 410. Remington has the legal right, and the engineering expertise, to remove hazardous
20 materials from his land and defendants have no right to steal Remingtons land without
21
compensation to act as a foundation for Mathsons entire property above. That overt, open,
unapologetic and uncompensated for land theft by Gans, Mathson and Kluck (at this point) of
22
Remingtons land caused by defendants encroaching trespasses is the wrong that we are
23
attempting to remedy here and it is not Remingtons responsibility to stabilize Mathsons illegal
24
debris at the property line. Defendants committed the original criminal acts and now must remove
25
all of their illegal debris stored on Mathsons land in order to support Mathsons entire property.
26
They have no right to pile almost 2 million pounds of hazardous wastes on Remingtons land to
27 support their lavish estate and Remington has the right to remove that debris. He hereby puts them
28 on notice that when that occurs there very likely will be damages and slides from above which it is
Mathsons responsibility to mitigate by virtue of the retaining wall they should have installed in
1998. The only alternative to an engineered retaining wall set firmly into native soils, probably
on pilings, would be if defendants THEMSELVES remove all of their hazardous debris at their
property line by excavating 15-feet deep at the property line and then making a suitable taper back
140
1
onto their land, at about a 5:1 ratio of horizontal distance to depth. That excavation method will
2
reduce the likelihood and severity of future landslides into Remingtons remediated and extensive
3
gardens and semi-old-growth forest, when Remington removes defendants hazardous wastes and
4
debris now illicitly buried on his land. As above, those hazardous wastes, now on Remingtons land
5
today, are 10-15 feet deep at the area in question, ARE Going to be removed imminently and
6 subsequent easily predictable damages, to one or both parties, and the future successive action
7 lawsuits under Spaulding and Cameron, Supra are rather obvious, and imminently likely, unless
8 defendants take some responsibility for their criminal acts for the first time ever and stop fighting
9 Remington to avoid a just outcome here, and begin cooperating and working on a jointly beneficial
10 solution involving said retaining wall.

411. In other words, said above INJUNCTION would ORDER Mathson and all Defendants
11
insurers to build a proper engineered retaining wall between the properties across the main dump
12
area at the Pulley line where the hazardous and contaminated debris is 8-15 deep. That retaining wall
13
would be intended to prevent and pre-empt future obvious successive action suits caused by the
14
inevitable additional slides of hazardous materials, describe the above, which eventually would
15
obviously occur on a nearly vertical dump slope, during a major earthquake, or several inch rain.
16 See Photo #26, bottom row of landfill collage, analogous here as to landfill wall collapses.
17 412. As explained above, when Remington remediates his land to that depth, landslides are
18 certain to emanate from Mathsons higher land and potentially drop and erode another several
19 hundred cubic yards of debris onto Remingtons cleaned-up and replanted land, requiring a NEW
20 lawsuit for $10-30,000 more to remove another 10-30 truck loads of contaminated and hazardous
21
debris.
413. To PREVENT the above damages from future hazardous materials landslides, in addition
22
to said retaining wall, Mathson MUST also install at his expense a 6-8perforated drain pipe on its
23
uphill side, which will capture any contaminated subterranean water at the interface of the dumped
24
hazardous wastes with the natural mountainside surface, and transfer it several hundred feet downhill
25
to where it can either be treated by one of the parties, as described in the state lawsuits, or just
26
channeled into the county ditches along Ridgewood Drive, to further pollute and the Humboldt Bay
27 wildlife preserves described herein. This court is urged to order that something be done because what
28 is clear is that Mathsons are responsible for all contamination on both of these properties; there are
still hydrocarbons in soils which are dissolving and being transferred in various types of waters
downhill onto Remingtons land and beyond; and, since the Mathsons have no interest in honestly
cleaning-up their own land, let-alone Remingtons, there will be some sort of hydrocarbon
migration (or down hill movements) in all of the types of waters moving, eroding and flowing
141
1
down and within the mountainside, pushing and carrying all varieties of materials located high up the
2
mountain at the landfills, for the indefinite future of at least thousands of years.
3
414. Compounding these above fence, slide, retaining wall and subterranean drainpipe
4
problems is a so-called settlement in Mathsons case against Remingtons insurer (handled by
5
Harvey Roberts) which was settled, for the enterprises extortive and prejudicial purpose of
6 removing Roberts from Remingtons case with a bribe in effect to Gans and Mathson of $20,000,
7 paid to Mathson, the latter of whom was required to use about $5000 of it to build a chain link fence
8 on the Pulley property line between the properties. Obviously, farmers insurance company had
9 different objectives, which are discussed in the RICO statement and involve saving themselves
10 potentially at least $100,000 and potentially 5-10 times that in a worst-case scenario, so their decision
in minimal gamble was an obvious and smart no-brainer. Since they were barely involved in the
11
case in the first place, that settlement was a financial godsend for them, but probably equally
12
detrimental to Remington as a result. Anything detrimental to Remington is favorable to the RICO
13
enterprise, which was why they promoted and applauded said extortive settlement, because it fit right
14
in with their overall objectives of eventually crushing and destroying Remington or probably ideally
15
by inciting such great fear that he voluntarily abandoned the lawsuits earlier. The depositions of the
16 principal RICO leadership will attempt to evoke some small semblance of the truth in this and other
17 areas.
18 415. As explained below, Mathson has prematurely begun that fence supported only by their
19 dumped hazardous debris, wherein it should have been properly engineered and erected to a
20 foundational retaining wall, which is permanently and deeply anchored in native soils. What
21
defendants have begun and intend to continue imminently will guarantee the continuation of many
more years of successive action lawsuits after Remington removes the 500-1000 contaminated and
22
encroaching yards of hazardous wastes from his land.
23
416. As explained in detail in the RICO statement, defendants egregiously and importantly
24
violated the written contract by starting their fence prematurely before the retaining wall was built and
25
at least several years prematurely before any cases are or could possibly be settled, after multiple
26
appeals. THAT new joint fence was not supposed to be built until after DR080678 was finally
27 resolved, however defendants, led by Gans RICO enterprise, have prematurely started it and have
28 caused significant new damages to Remingtons land during this very hard rainy winter, where the
land had not been properly winterized, and therefore further damaged Remingtons land far below.
Even before the rains, defendants damaged Remingtons land further by rolling adverse contaminated
debris from their premature and unnecessary ditch at the Pulley line, further down onto Remingtons
land, which damage greatly accelerated and increased when the hard rains of winter 2016-17 began
142
1
and which continue today, and actually the majority of the days from November 2016 into February
2
2017. Additionally, Mathson used this subterfuge and very premature execution and therefore express
3
violation and breach of a contractual agreement to enter into Remingtons fenced areas, where he was
4
obviously extensively video down surveillance cameras, and to further remove conspicuous visual
5
evidence of his contaminating crimes, such as removing more asbestos pipes. Now, Gans may attempt
6 to blur the video dates and events to attempt to argue that John Mathson had some legitimacy in
7 August 2016, when he again committed further torts against Remington by removing more key
8 incriminating asbestos evidence, however since the cameras clearly record all dates and times, we will
9 be able to sort all that out for a jury. Simply put, all of Mathsons forays into Remingtons fenced and
10 posted no trespassing areas were done illegitimately, in pursuit of various criminal, tortious and/or in
the above case, merely serious, premature contract breaching activities, all of which damaged
11
Remington in some respect.
12
417. Since Mathson began erecting his new chain-link fence on the Pulley line prematurely,
13
on no proper native soil foundation and BEFORE Remington remediates his land in any case;
14
NOW, when said remediation does occur with that new fence in place, it will very obviously cause
15
Mathsons new fence to collapse onto Remingtons land, when excavations 10-15 deep occur
16 exactly at the base of said fence. How could any fence withstand that, so why are defendants
17 ignoring these obvious engineering principles and common sense and common law principles?
18 418. All of the above factors and obvious prognostications about the prematurity of building that
19 already begun fence, are obvious in a logical and engineering sense. Remington is a Cornell educated,
20 Sloan National Scholar, scientist and very experienced excavation, structural and practicing engineer (in
21
other specialties) and understands the technical side, design of and construction of a retaining wall on
the Remington-Madison property line. THEREFORE, Remington requests this Court to enjoin Mathson
22
from building any fences UNTIL such time as Remingtons land has been remediated, OR alternatively,
23
ORDER defendants to build their fence sooner on top of a properly foundationally engineered
24
RETAINING wall, if they desire. Their wall must be strong enough to withstand an excavator digging
25
directly against it 15 deep, at the base of said wall, and what they are doing now will totally collapse
26
when remediation is begun on Remingtons land. Since Remington is an engineer, if defendants wish
27 him to submit suitable retaining wall specifications or plans which will withstand set above excavator
28 digging away all non-native debris right down to native, virgin redwood forest soils, then he can easily
do so. If defendants blatantly and rudely ignore Remingtons advice and offer of assistance, then they
obviously cannot be heard to complain later that they were not warned and just did not understand.
419. THIS COURT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED TO ORDER:
A. That defendants hire a licensed CIVIL engineer to correct their egregious 1998 project errors;
143
1
B. That said licensed engineer make an and approved appropriate structural plan;
2
C. That Defendants procure an appropriate Building Permit, and begin subsequent inspections;
3
D. That Defendants excavate along Pulley line and construct a strong, stand-alone retaining wall;
4
E. That Defendants INSTALL a 6 westerly slopping perforated landfill-draining pipe on the
5
Mathson side of the BASE of said wall to intercept Mathsons contaminated water flowing beneath the
6 fill, as described elsewhere;
7 F. Defendants to PAY Remington $260,000 to complete the abatement, and all related soil and water
8 remedial activities on the eastern portion of the property, as described in detail in various 2014-16
9 documents, subject to the frequently referenced plans and changes under McEdwards, referred to in
10 2015-16 documents. Said captured contaminated waters will next be monitored, controlled, stored,
treated by distillation and other means, and then recycling into Remingtonss fruitful, needed irrigation
11
uses. Those water processes would take place on the edge of the county right-of-way for Ridgewood
12
Drive near the corner of the parties properties and could be all on Remingtons Land or partially on both
13
parcels.
14
G. FINALLY, after those initial steps have been accomplished, an appropriate final resolution of
15
ALL remaining issues, DAMAGES, (or Restitution) can take place through a Settlement conference,
16 mediation or short jury trial on all remaining past, present and future DAMAGE and RESTITUTION
17 issues, from both sides, including STIGMA, indefinite indemnity and all other future fears and issues.
18 420. Conclusion: Those above steps will resolve and END this dispute the fastest and most just.
19 Wherefore, Plaintiff requests judgment against each Defendant, as outlined below at Relief
20 Requested and environmentally based damages , AND for:
21
421. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuously
penetrating, entering, disturbing, vandalizing and destroying portions of Plaintiffs wire security
22
fences in any manner whatsoever or from dumping any further materials of any kind onto his
23
property or within said fence; or from allowing any of THEIR existing above or below ground toxins
24
to wash down onto Remingtons land in drainage water from defendants property above, to or from
25
the toe of the fill and below to the creek, until this lawsuit is completed, and also for indefinitely
26
thereafter. Remington has and will be requesting that the local district attorney and Northcoast FBI
27 agents investigate suitable punishments for Mathsons surveilled fence tampering, vandalistic
28 destructions, evidence tampering, perjury and all the other state and (very soon to become) federal
crimes listed in the RICO statement.
422. Also, plaintiff additionally requests that the court ORDER defendants to remove all
poisons and hazardous wastes from THEIR (defendants) own property, as well as from plaintiffs
property, (in an entirely SEPARATE ORDER and action) and to further remediate both properties
144
1
and take any other actions that may be necessary to abate the imminent and substantial
2
endangerments referenced, clean-up the environment generally and improve the overall health of
3
the community and all impacted water bodies to the west. Every rain now causes Mathsons HCs
4
and the other hazardous TOXINS to migrate further down onto and deeper into Remingtons lower
5
lands contaminating them and injuring and/or killing all non-hydrocarbon resistant tree species in
6 that area, plus at least 90% of all the roses and sensitive plant varieties.
7 423. THIS COURT IS THEREFORE FURTHER URGED TO ASSUME
8 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY, UNDER RULE 65, 28 USC 1367, over this issue and also
9 over cause of action #11, below. That would be because The state system is rapidly failing to
10 resolve these environmental cases due to limited staff and courtroom issues which are getting
WORSE, not better.
11
424. Hopefully this Court can assert its useful authority and power, and resolve some or ALL
12
of these issues which the state system has not had the ability or will to do. Rather clearly, state
13
judges have too large a caseload to properly understand and administer these cases, plus a physical
14
lack of courtrooms, staff restrictions and the perpetual sabotaging of Remingtons filed documents
15
here, etc, have made this state adjudication nearly unworkable to date. After 10 years in state court,
16 we today have only a confused mess administratively, more than likely and imminent appeal, which
17 to Remington represents less than justice here, after 8 continuous years of litigation. Remington
18 has unfortunately concluded that the Humboldt County Superior Court is just too busy, overworked
19 and either somewhat incompetent or grossly understaffed (or likely BOTH), to capably, justly,
20 timely or determinatively handle these successive Remington v. Mathson cases.
21
425. Since most of these causes of action are tied together, it would appear that a smart,
motivated, decisive, environmentally-experienced and/or energetic and talented judge could
22
potentially resolve everything outlined here, all at once in a few days, or at least resolve
23
SOMETHING so that what remains would be easier to settle or end, perhaps locally someday.
24
Defendants have obviously concluded that under Brissos ironclad control over the Humboldt
25
County Superior Court and Humboldt County Health Departments Environmental Enforcement
26
Divisions systems, they are NOT going to have to clean-up their mess they ADMITTEDLY
27 PLACED ON REMINGTON'S LAND. Between their corrupt RICO enterprises tactics and their
28 apparent control over a substantial portion of the state court system in Eureka, it is now obvious to
Remington that defendants now know that they can keep these cases going indefinitely, under their
hometown judge and former law partner, long enough for Remington to be ruined financially,
emotionally or personally, or just die before anything is resolved cleaned-up here. Any of those
alternative non-resolutions of these cases appear to be satisfactory to the RICO enterprise in the
145
1
short-term, however by summer 2017 they have us we hope to have all this wrapped up with a
2
proper home-town decision from their law partner, which order and decision will have probably
3
been drafted Word for Word by the Mitchell firm and then just signed or stamped by Judge
4
Reinholtsen. Recently, over the last 9-10 months anyway, said judge has barely written a single
5
word of his own in special jury instructions or orders, such as in his MIL #20 order, which details
6 he appears not to understand at all, and now he clearly depends on Gans and Brisso to draft words,
7 acceptable to themselves for his signature, to which he normally makes zero typed corrections.
8 Inferentially, he has a weak word-processing assistant and probably know legal research assistant at
9 all which he desperately needs. Actually, said judge needs a staff of about 10 including 3-4
10 assistant judges capable of acting independently on these cases, which he does not have, and hence
we are here.
11
12
426. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A RULE 65 INJUNCTION ORDERING A
13
PROPERTY INSPECTION OF MATHSONS PROPERTY,
14
BOTH In This Case And Also In DR140426 Where Discovery Has Been Blocked For over 2 Years.
15
427. An Injunction is herein requested ordering the lawful Discovery investigation and
16 INSPECTION of various portions of Mathsons land previously corruptly and procedurally barred
17 by Gans and not yet forced or COMPELLED by Remington in state court, due to the extended stays
18 in Case # DR140426, for 2 years and increasing, where inspections have been prejudicially and
19 effectively barred since September 2014. Defendants KNOW all too well what we will discover
20 there next, with magnetometers and some shallow digging, and are therefore desperately
21
blocking all honest scientific and material facts from this case.
428. In this NEW federal case an inspection is also needed, for Remingtons experts to confirm
22
and photograph what Remington already knows and has proven about the significant solid TWIN
23
pipes, which were carefully designed to protect defendants toxic 55-gallon leaking drums, which
24
we have been informed to expect to find buried-in Mathsons deep draw.
25
429. A full investigation of the solid twin 6 drainage pipes (see Footnote 26, next page),
26
will also fully EXPOSE Gans brazen March-April 2016 pre-trial perjuriesIn Judge Reinholtsens
27 court which were fully documented on the stenographic record. Also, Mathsons similar perjuries
28 on the same topic mostly from 2010-11 will similarly be exposed and perhaps most importantly we
can finally get the scientific truth on the record and simultaneously expertly refute Ferrimans 2011
perjuries surrounding the solid twin 6 pipes. In several 2011 declarations, Ferriman repeatedly
FALSELY swore that said above solid twin 6-inch drain pipes were a perfect test case for
proving that Mathsons fill was benign and not emitting dissolved hydrocarbons into the
146
1
contaminated springs which all originate on Mathsons land; which contaminated springs
2
thereafter seep and ooze-down onto Remingtons lower lands in the region of the swamp, both
3
above and below ground contaminating the entire area. It took a few years of investigations,
4
which were described in detail above, however we now know that said twin pipes just carry
5
drinking water downhill from Mathsons backyard and do come in contact with any fill or any
6 hydrocarbon-based or any of the other types of hazardous materials thoroughly identified here on
7 these industrial-sized residential landfills.
8 430. Said herein requested investigation will also conclusively prove on the record the
9 perjury by John Mathson where he swore that he never used his unlawful and unpermitted
10 backyard septic system, which we also know is absolutely false, from our direct, friendly and
candid conversations with him around 2005, while we were friends before the onset of these
11
lawsuits. In other words, we need an inspection here and in DR140426 for our experts and for
12
photography, and one investigation will be sufficient for and applicable to BOTH cases.
13
431. Simply put, the next lawful property investigation of Mathsons land, will conclusively
14
prove that Gans and defendants have deliberately perpetrated a serious contamination fraud on at
15
least 3 courts, derived from their fraudulent twin 6 solid pipes studies in 201026. Remington
16
26 These pipes dangerously drench Remingtons steep land below, erode it severely, totally
17
destabilize it and directly cause huge slides every year below those pipes, which damages plaintiffs
18 land below in any hard rain. In a hard rain, enormous volumes of water jet out of said twin pipes at
very high velocity onto and into Remingtons steep, muddy ground only six (6) feet from the boundary
19 fence separating the properties. These pipes can deliver a maximum of 500-1000 gallons per MINUTE
in a small rapidly dropping RIVER, and waterfall, onto and into plaintiffs wet, very steep adjacent
20
ground, where much of that water immediately disappears underground for about 60-150 feet before
21 bursting forth from a 60-70 degree slope on plaintiffs property below. There is also tremendous
erosion and silting of Remington Creek caused by those unlawful high velocity runoff twin pipes. Said
22 rivers of high volume TOO RAPID water-runoff and MUD, have already caused serious instability
23
and slides below, which threat and damages gradually increase and continue. Plaintiff mitigated his
damages years ago by installing a short diversionary pipe to a pool and continuous pump on his
24 property, which worked successfully for years, however when defendants deliberately, wantonly and
maliciously removed said pipe in winter 2008, after acquiescing to it for over five (5) years, they then
25 allowed additional underground seepage and major erosion, which predicatively caused slides and
26
other damages to plaintiff as described herein.
This egregious disruption of plaintiffs damages-mitigating drain pipe has already caused several
27 severe, difficult and expensive to stabilize slides on plaintiffs property, about 50-80 away and below,
and the steep bank for 20-40 feet above said active slide area is now very unstable, seriously cracked,
28
weakened and in imminent danger of further significant collapse in a heavy rainstorm, because of
defendants intentional trespassory removal of said mitigating pipe. As a proximate result, defendants
have now effectively DESTABILIZED the entire large area for about 100 below their septic drainage
and stream diverting runoff pipes, placing a large amount of plaintiffs very steep property and
planting project in imminent peril and already resulting in large permanent losses of topsoil and
plantings, plus the many other damages described.
147
1
already has proven and already fully understands The scientific dynamics surrounding the twin
2
pipes and their gravel filled draw. Now we merely need our retained environmental experts plus the
3
Countys hazardous materials unit investigators to verify on the sworn investigatory record those
4
above stated facts which are already known here, which facts are therefore guaranteed to
5
generate at least another 5-6 predicate acts, against Gans, Mathson, Ferriman, Gwinn and Hillyard,
6 at a minimum, in the process.
7 432. Mathsons twin 6-inch solid drainpipes have been proven to originate at a clean spring
8 in their backyard and then traverse exactly 96-feet diagonally down of 45 mountainside to where
9 said twin 6-inch diameter black flex pipes stick out of the steep bank, conclusively exposing their
10 composition. In addition to having personally observed and photographed the Western downhill
termination of said pipes, Remington found the 4-foot long cut-off ends from each pipe, 12-15 years
11
ago, and saved them for other purposes, but now has them as a very important trial exhibit to prove
12
all Remingtons alleged facts surrounding those pipes.
13
433. As described below in FN #27, said twin pipes can and frequently DO cause grave
14
damage, erosion and new significant slides to Remingtons lower lands27 during any moderately
15
heavy rain, by concentrating unlawful, unnaturally high-volume, unrestrained and uncontrolled
16 river-like flows of water onto his land, at very high volume and velocities, analogous to re-
17 channeling a small stream directly onto steep muddy slopes directly below, on Remingtons land.
18 That unnatural re-channeling of a stream onto the lands of a lower neighbor is unlawful under all
19 known natural and state laws, and obviously has caused and continues to cause severe slope
20 instability and major slide problems directly below. After a heavy rain, a walk about 100-feet
21
below where those twin 6-inch pipes shoot approximately 500-1000 gallons per minute of high
velocity water onto Remingtons land shows what looks like a 5-10 foot wide river ran down the
22
property causing extensive damages as described elsewhere, which is largely attributable to
23
24 27 For many years plaintiff maintained a short drainage pipe to capture and control the enormous
concentrated water and raw sewage run-off from defendants upper property about 25 above, and
25 attempt to mitigate his damages. After neighborly acquiescing to it for over five (5) years, beginning in
early 2008, John Mathson and defendants repeatedly, knowingly, deliberately, and maliciously
26
disturbed, removed and continued to disrupt that CRUCIAL drainage pipe, rendering it useless. During
27 storms, that pipe previously for years, importantly controlled an extensive and excessive amount of
narrowly directed relatively high-volume, high-velocity water runoff emanating from said two large 6
28 twin pipes, originating from defendants French drains above, which drain said above-described clean
spring, storm buildups of rainwater, and also his extensive, illegal and unpermitted septic fields
directly above. In 2008, whenever plaintiff daily replaced said drain pipe into its properly functioning
position defendants soon moved it aside sufficiently so that it did not capture and control any of
defendants draining water, but rather sent it largely underground, thus slowly destabilizing the entire
hillside, causing MAJOR slide damages below, and resulted in parts of Remingtons gardens
collapsing into Remington Creek, causing serious damages described below.
148
1
defendants uncontrolled, dangerous, unengineered landfill runoff. The water in defendants twin
2
pipes drops about 50 vertical feet over approximately 96 horizontal feet, and emerges with
3
sufficiently GREAT velocity, force and power to generate enough electricity for a substantial
4
number of local residences. Since that high-energy, high-volume, unrestrained and dangerous water
5
is about 25-feet onto Mathsons land, Remington cannot attempt to harness it or use it to generate
6 substantial power, as he would if it were on his land. In that latter hypothetical case, after
7 generating power from it he would carefully control it in gentle irrigation systems which would
8 benefit the land and not dangerously eroded into the Creek, Elk River and the adjacent National
9 Wildlife Sanctuaries.
10 434. Said twin pipes NOW (as this is being written during a February 2017 storm) cause
grave damage, erosion and new significant slides to Remingtons lower lands in any heavy rain, by
11
concentrating intense, damaging unnatural flows of water onto his land, at very high volume,
12
velocities, and forces analogous to re-channeling a small stream directly onto steep muddy slopes
13
directly below, on Remingtons land. That unnatural re-channeling of a stream onto the lands of a
14
lower neighbor is unlawful under all known natural and state laws, because it causes the damages
15
described above and in the next paragraph.
16 435. Plaintiff presently calculates that his total slide mitigating damages at that location to this
17 point are more than $9500, which includes the costs of lost original plants, lost replacement plants,
18 importing large quantities of top soil, mulches and fertilizer by hand carried 5-gallon buckets from
19 more than 100 yards away (as wheelbarrows cannot begin to get there), and the continued replanting
20 time, materials and costs for about 200 major trees, bushes, vines plus bulbs and wildflowers above
21
and in the slide area itself, plus shoring-up attempts including the placement of large logs in the
cracks and ravines, driving numerous pilings and water speed reducers and placing black plastic over
22
certain cracked, eroded and/or weakened areas to direct surface water flows away. Additional
23
damages, difficult to place an exact dollar value upon have also been suffered, according to proofs,
24
outlined at the end of this document and at trial, for the lost land square footage, large amount of
25
planning, working and monitoring time, large amounts of lost topsoil, fertilizers and imported mulch
26
and the additional silting of the creek causing excessive pump intake burying, wear, cleaning and
27 clogging failures in plaintiffs irrigation pumps directly below, and relatively close to said slide. Total
28 monetary damages to plaintiffs land and personal property from erosion and slides in that area
continue in 2016, can presently only be estimated and have so-far reached at least $35,000, with more
by the time of trial, because natural damages caused by excessive, unlawful and uncontrolled water
flows never seem to get better or correct themselves. Remington has not yet studied that area for
additional damages during this very hard winter, and it is theoretically possible today that he has lost
149
1
a lot more land, topsoil and viable plants than what is listed above, but if so, he will include that in
2
the FAC. Monetary damages to the State and the United States, as related to excessive sediment and
3
the eroded-away soils in the creek, bay and lower wetlands also exist, which would need to be
4
determined by environmental expert witnesses from a California State Fish and Game naturalist
5
expert in the future, as needed and according to proofs.
6 436. Similar additional damages caused by Randall on the South side of the creek are
7 independent, continuing, did not seriously manifest themselves until December 2013 and currently
8 are estimated in the $18,000 range for all costs and detriment caused thereby. Additionally, the
9 Randall slide is just below the massive residential structure and potentially could expand easterly
10 and envelope the entire structure if Remingtons serious mitigation efforts should fail, as alluded to
in the RICO statement. If that slide continues to deteriorate, potentially catastrophic damages to
11
Remingtons entire structure in the million-dollar range could quickly result.
12
437. Therefore, SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY UNDER RULE 65, 28 USC 1367 is
13
requested, i.e. for this Court to assert same and resolve these issues which the state system, judges,
14
budgetary, physical, ethical and intellectual restrictions here are rather clearly incapable of justly
15
handling, after 10 years of these disputes, with only a confused continuing mess, so far here to
16 show for it, which represents justice after 8 continuous years of litigation.
17 438. THIS Court needs to convince and/or FORCE defendants to conclude that they are going
18 to have to eventually clean-up their mess, BEFORE Remington and/or the Mathsons die of old age
19 or unnatural Causes, and not NEVER as they now inferentially assume. In Humboldt County
20 defendants obviously prematurely concluded that they can keep their frivolous anti-societal defenses
21
alive indefinitely, let their contamination continue to do its damages for 1000 years, and until
Remington runs out of resources or health. As discussed above, quite possibly defendants attorneys
22
are right if these litigations continue in the Enterprises home-town court, with environmental
23
investigations conducted by bureaucrats also totally controlled and influenced by Mr. Brisso, as
24
explained. If defendants enterprise does totally control both state courts and environmental
25
regulatory agencies in Eureka, and certainly DO control as much of both as they need to battle the
26
old Pro Per Remington, then Remington does not have much of a chance in Eureka and therefore
27 needs this federal case. This environmental suit and its companion RICO action are designed to
28 bring All of the defendants in these cases to justice despite the GansRICO enterprises tight
control of the courts, the health department and probably many other local power centers, all from
their prestigious command center location in the plush Mitchell firm office building.

150
1
439. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR REMEDIATION AND DAMAGES FOR
2
STATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CONTINUING NUISANCE, PER CACI 2030S
3
PRINCIPLES AND AUTHORITIES.
4
Plaintiff incorporates each allegation contained in the general allegations above, below and
5
throughout, as if set out at length here. Also, to the extent relevant the updated facts in the FAC-SAC
6 DR140426 Appendix revised in July 2015, and 2015 SA-SS, and all other sworn Remington
7 documents in this case are included by reference as supplementary background, plus the RICO
8 statement. MOST appropriately supersede the now obsolete writings and musings from 2008, and to
9 the extent allowed by the Court as rendered in its RENZ ruling, related to precisely WHAT years
10 damages are allowed in this Continuing trespass/nuisance case. The PRIOR 3 years are obviously
allowed under CACI 2030 and Supreme Court precedents, but under Renz v. 33rd Agricultural
11
Association (1995), No H011907, 6th District, ALL other damages through trial and appeals MAY also
12
be granted, see 2008 complaint REPLY: page 7. As explained above, that case could have a profound
13
impact here and multiplied damages by up to 3-10 times.
14
440. Defendants wanton destruction of, unlawful and uninvited use and the maintenance thereof
15
of Plaintiffs property, as described above, constitutes a continuing private nuisance under Civil
16 Code, 3479. Ds deposits of hazardous ASBESTOS, LEAD, BENZENE, BORON, TOXIC
17 LEVELS OF DISSOLVED IRON, CHROMIUM, PAHS ASPHALT, SILICA DUSTS,
18 CONCENTRATED DEGRADED HCS, DERIVATIVES AND LEAKING USTS, CYLINDERS
19 AND PIPING FROM OLD SERVICE STATION EXCAVATED REMEDIATIONS, and the
20 numerous other so-far discovered adverse substances dumped and permanently deposited adjacent to
21
and directly above a known watercourse, and ON Remingtons land, was in violation of scores of
22
California and OTHER laws.
23
441. Defendants deposited hazardous and other very adverse, poisonous, non-native substances
and related concrete, rocky and related DEAD materials onto plaintiffs land which was severely
24
injurious to plaintiffs, defendants, all animals and the publics physical and emotional health, and
25
was also offensive to plaintiffs senses. Defendants then BURIED and concealed said hazardous,
26
contaminated, unwanted, Un-consented to and clearly NOT REQUESTED OR CONDONED on
27
Remingtons land where they still reside today, unexcavated. Said substances also continue to
28
unlawfully leach, osmose, capillarily act, ooze and otherwise emit hazardous and toxic chemicals
onto and further into plaintiffs soils, farther down the mountain to impact entirely new areas
annually, into his formerly entirely pristine watercourse (Remington Creek), formerly inhabited by
hundreds of animals, as proven by the continuous array of EMPTY nests and dens in the area. Said

151
1
hazardous toxic and unwanted materials also move under many other physical principles
2
includingWithout limitation: cohesion-tension; osmosis; hydraulic forces; electro-conditions;
3
sorption; water percolation; simple Newton gravity forces; convection; capillary action and adhesion-
4
cohesion, to mention but a few. Defendants toxic discharges, deposits and illicit criminal polluting
5
acts above also have adversely directly affected his redwood forest, all of his plantings North of
6 Remington Creek and many of his property-wide approximately 15,000+ planted major garden
7 plants, bushes and trees.
8 442. After exuding, oozing and otherwise appearing above and below ground, under the above-
9 named common chemically moving forces, Mathsons, defendants and all of their, unhealthy dusts,
10 dissolved or waterborne unbroken-down fecal bacteria and concentrated and degraded remediated gas
station hydrocarbon toxins, mostly all run sharply downhill and directly into the several major
11
springs and continuous seepages directly emanating from Mathsons HILL and lower dump regions,
12
ABOVE AND BELOW GROUND, in the swamp region on Remingtons land by about 15. The
13
numerous tiny, dust, vapor, droplet and powdery substances including many of the named pathogens
14
and toxins which are mostly submicroscopic, e.g most friable asbestos and lethal chrysotile fibers, are
15
also windblown and are therefore dispersed in all directions, including uphill. Obviously, tiny
16 particles can also be waterborne downhill, sideways in any type of moving water, which again is
17 predominantly vertically downhill. Said above toxic water flows emanating from beneath Mathsons
18 dump and actually appearing far downhill IN the toe-of-the-fill (as characterized by Maje Hoyos of
19 the County Health Department), then all flow DIRECTLY and rapidly into said CREEK, and from
20 there, as Discussed previously, quickly into Elk River, Humboldt Bay, the numerous adjacent
21
National Wildlife sanctuaries, wetlands and Endangered Species Preserves and the Pacific Ocean,
polluting all of them, irreparably, without any hope for resolution. That has now occurred for 19+
22
years and Remington has ineffectually tried to STOP it for more than 8 years now.
23
443. Further, this defendants-caused nuisance area now will not readily support beneficial plant
24
life, KILLS or sickens animals who drink from the creek, by actual inspection, makes a large portion of
25
plaintiffs fertile and formerly picturesque hillside unusable, aesthetically ugly for backgrounds of
26
panoramic photos causing loss of profits which was one overall goal of this unique potentially world-
27 class redwoods garden park. Overall, defendants contamination spoils the entire project, ruins the
28 safety and natural beauty and benefits of the environment for Plaintiff, all local animals, birds and
neighboring humans; and spoils the tranquility, character and usability of that large portion of
Remingtons gardens and agricultural operations growing useful fruits, nuts and berries, and an almost
virgin OLD, very tall second growth redwood forest. Remington has at least 20 very large trees and

152
1
huge ancient stump-snags, up to 20 feet in diameter, which would be perfectly at home and entirely
2
visually consistent with any Redwood State or National Park in this area.
3
444. As a result of defendants 1998 and subsequent dumping, burial and slides of heavy debris in
4
the landfill areas on Remingtons land, numerous trees were bent over from the vertical and now
5
dangerously LEAN further downhill towards and onto Remingtons land. MOST of those now
6 dangerously LEANING TREES are located ON Mathsons land and lean towards Remingtons
7 creating a dangerous unstable condition (described previously at length), great risks to plaintiff and
8 his visitors, as at least one such tree HAS fallen, and would have killed anything under it. At least 6
9 such dangerous trees still remain, just waiting for the right adverse wind, rain or other statics
10 equilibrium destroying conditions to occur, which could cause any of said trees to fall on plaintiff,
his grandkids or any visitor at ANY time. Said nuisance conditions create anxiety, emotional stress
11
and said DANGEROUS trees need to be removed by Mathson at his expense, but they have refused
12
and think said trees are just a big joke.
13
445. The net cumulative result above is the obstruction of the free use of plaintiffs property,
14
the publics adjacent and lower watercourse uses, his right to private occupancy and the almost TOTAL
15
termination of and interference with plaintiffs comfortable enjoyment of life, LEL as well as the
16 other related damages described at the end of this complaint. That was caused by the contamination, its
17 subsequent effects, ramifications and subsidiary effects, and also by said dangerous trees to a lesser
18 degree.
19 446. Accordingly, defendants conduct and polluted filling activities have prevented and
20 CONTINUE to prevent plaintiff from freely using and enjoying his property creating a serious
21
continuing private nuisance on this magnificent estate and property, apparently without an ENDING.
447. In February and again on May 8, 2006, plaintiff first gave written notice to defendants
22
Mathsons to abate their admitted caused nuisance; however they ignored those letters and did little
23
except to PLAN an elaborate campaign and war of INTIMIDATION, EXTORTION, LITIGATION
24
AND RETALIATION against plaintiff which they ably, vigorously and energetically exercised for
25
many years, BUT very seriously, as a potentially deadly RICO enterprise vendetta against
26
Remington, through the corrupt, ruthless and criminally managed 2016 trial.
27 448. Additionally, the required Federal agencies were first contacted about these unlawful
28 activities and VIOLATIONS in 2009, with no effect, because Gans, Brisso and the Mitchell firm, as
we have previously alleged in great detail, have very long, VERY POWERFUL tentacles which
influence the County Health Department (through Director Martel, special emissary Esko AND
MANY others) and BEYOND, and all complaints to other California agencies and bureaucracies
seem to eventually return to Humboldt County Health for enforcement, investigations and usually
153
1
lack of either. Therefore, Plaintiff believes that Gans and Brisso have improper control over all state
2
enforcement here, and have blocked all actions for years, since Mark Johnson and Maje Hoyos both
3
idealistically tried and TOLD Remington they would be successful, but BOTH have failed to
4
accomplish ANYTHING here to date. Brisso is and has been the County Counsel, Eureka city
5
attorney and has held related powerful positions and is believed to have hired, trained and obviously
6 influenced and probably intimidated many if not most of the young attorneys associated with all
7 governmental legal entities in Eureka, and probably well-beyond that. Remington is perfectly
8 capable of investigating all of these connections and improper influences, if any, and also has an
9 investigative attorney to assist with that important work. Maybe Brisso and Gans are just little
10 guys in this town with little or no influence or control; however, based on Remingtons best present
information involving several witnesses, plus his own astute observations for 10 years, Brisso is
11
really Mr. Big in this town and most all-powerful figures here fear and respect him. What
12
unlawful activities, crimes, influences or other relevant assistance he has provided to Gans and his
13
RICO enterprises leadership, essentially still remains to be fully discovered, in all of the ways
14
possible.
15
449. As a result of defendants wanton trespasses, encroachment causing a private and public
16 nuisance, Remington was damaged as described below, at least to the extent of the remediation costs
17 plus the other reasonable general and special damages and costs described to prosecute this action and
18 continue onward here, which damages continue daily for arguably at least $1000 per day. Emotional
19 distress from said leaning trees cumulatively increases every day also, especially when it is rainy and
20 WINDY, like today. Remington would need to be a suicidal masochist to go anywhere near those
21
leaning trees tonight for instance, with 25 mile-per-hour winds raging.
450. Remington herein requests that defendants ABATE, remove, clean-up or fully remediate the
22
nuisance which violates the laws cited, which specifically entails, in part, excavating defendants
23
unwanted debris, however it is categorized, onto trucks the 1.4-2 million pounds of non-native
24
materials deposited on Remingtons land by defendants, much of it in giant concrete and rusted iron,
25
asbestos and asphalt chunks, some with sharp tetanus danger. If everything is removed from the
26
mountainside and trucked-out then the hazardous materials can be sorted-out, in Hazmat suits and
27 respirators and properly handled. EVERYTHING must be removed just to get to the asbestos pipes
28 buried the deepest, plus all contaminated soils, debris and toxic junk need to be removed from that site.
Finally, ALL groundwater flowing underneath Mathsons dump, from Mathsons property, at the native
soils interface must be intercepted by said above perforated pipe inside Mathsons new retaining wall,
from where it flows by gravity either onto Remingtons property, for treatment and recycling for
irrigation, or onto Mathsons, and beyond.
154
1
451. Abatement ALSO means cutting down all of the dangerous leaning trees growing on
2
Mathsons land, Alders and at least two large leaning redwoods, from debris pushing on them from
3
the uphill side, which threaten the life of Remington and all his visitors. Conventional topping of the
4
Alders is too expensive, difficult and likely insufficient overall, and could compound the problem if
5
the trees die.
6 452. Aveggios 2011 RAP set forth our DETAILED 2011 plan for removing all contaminated
7 soils from Remingtons land and disposing of them at a legal landfill. His plan was to make a haul
8 road from the South suitable for a 95,000# excavator and a 10-yard dump truck to drive in and out on,
9 and to excavate (wearing respirators) the contaminated debris into 50-60 dump truck loads and haul-it
10 away for proper disposal. All asbestos pipes, friable matting and insulation will have to be specially
handled and separated in hazmat suits, masks, plastic bagged and legally hauled by permit to a lawful
11
disposal site.
12
453. In 2012, Remington actually BEGAN the remediations preliminary steps, with Bob Figas
13
physically removing Remingtons gigantic 75,000# loader from blocking our remediation hauling
14
road and bridge access, so that some filling and smoothing could take place suitable for large dump
15
trucks. Previously Remington had paid about $700 to Willis Trucking to haul miscellaneous
16 defendants toxic debris to the dump and here Figas was paid $1800+ for what he DID do, but the
17 rest of the access road and removal of other items in the way were never completed because of
18 Skillings Intimidation and extortion of Figas, which scared him away, BIG TIME, and for good, as
19 described. Obviously RAO feared wed discover something really serious and really illegal, as
20 there are tremendous amounts of hazardous to extremely, and even ultra-hazardous materials
21
present here. Additionally, Remington now operates on the working theory that there must be
something even worse than imagined here to justify defendants paranoia and violent reactions to
22
our impending work in the dump area, even 300 feet away is too close for them. Therefore, we will
23
in the future be looking for biological wastes and radioactivity with a Geiger counter to see just
24
what Olson, Gans and Skillings in particular are so afraid of us discovering. That is a presently big
25
mystery, and Remington loves mysteries which makes all this a lot more interesting after so many
26
years of railing about hydrocarbon contamination. Inferentially, there is much more than that buried
27 over there, north of the Creek which in 1998 defendants regarded as their own to use, abuse and
28 ruin for all time, and as they saw fit.
454. Figas panicked departure resulted shortly thereafter in a massive 1000+ cubic foot slide,
thanks to Mr. RANDALL (as fully explained in the RICO statement in Volume II, 3E) where a major
portion of Remingtons gardens dropped 6 vertical feet, initially causing $9000 of additional plant
damage, plus subsequent expensive other mitigation measures to prevent worse subsidences there.
155
1
Remington contracted with Mr. Marsh to make an Easterly road in but he was also intimidated and
2
extorted, and later got rained-out in early November, 2015, before that could be reconciled, while
3
Remington went to Oregon to complete some real estate business.
4
455. Additional water remedial measures now required. Said 2011 SHN RAP was completed in
5
late June 2011 and was based upon all soil knowledge then available, and was predicated upon the
6 concept that removal of Remingtons contaminated soils, as well as retaining Mathsons and properly
7 draining the area, would mostly resolve the lower water issues, which contaminated magnitude was
8 actually barely known at all in June 2011, and not until August and then December 2011 when things
9 become clearer, from the numerous SHN and county tests. Inflation, time, Aveggios death and Fogets
10 corrupt transfer, which totally sabotaged our environmental trial expert team, have rendered that
bids dollar value partially obsolete, so Dr. McEdwards and others will eventually bid the entire
11
project again focused largely on the water data we now have. $250,000 was Remingtons best 2015
12
estimate FOR full LONG-TERM SOIL AND WATER REMEDIATION, which will be updated,
13
probably increased somewhat, especially as related to the retaining wall and water treatment plans, and
14
then confirmed in principle, and be made exact to the dollar by trial. This is not an indefinite Mangini
15
II, Supra case where the exact amount of contamination is uncertain or whether it can be removed
16 completely or at all. Here, defendants merely dumped numerous loads of hazardous materials on a
17 mountainside containing a virgin forest, and it will be easy to know when native soils have been
18 reached, just as if we were sweeping debris off of a wood floor. Since we very accurately know the
19 volume, the number of truckloads, difficulties of excavating on a steep rough terrain mountainside and
20 therefore the number of days of excavation with a large excavator, in totally dry weather can be very
21
precisely determined now.
22
456. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ABATEMENT OF AND DAMAGES
23
FROM PUBLIC NUISANCE
24
All previous and subsequent factual allegations, theories and comments which relate to
25
abatement of public nuisance and damages here, from above, below and all relevant factual
26
documents, are hereby incorporated by reference from all filed documents, especially the sworn
27 ones, in this and all other cases since 2008, giving emphasis in cases of conflict or inconsistency to
28 those amended in 2015 and subsequently, because they are obviously the most up-to-date
consolidations and versions of the continuously changing discovered facts. See ESPECIALLY
paragraphs #448-455 ABOVE for considerable DIRECTLY RELEVANT AND OVERLAPPING

156
1
FACTS. Also #457 for additional factual and cause of action element and proof inclusions by
2
reference.
3
457. Preamble: As above under Private nuisance: Remington suffered serious HARM from
4
public nuisance, described in DETAIL above and in the scores of related, cited factual sworn and
5
other documents in case, plus the above allegations. All such facts apply here obviously, where
6 relevant. Remington includes all of the relevant above allegations, facts, filed case source
7 documents, discussions of all of the elements of this and all other causes of action, and damages
8 by reference here as though fully set-forth, plus all other sworn testimony in the record which
9 supports this amendment. HERE, Remington requests appropriate Court ORDERS and funds from
10 defendants to fully remediate Plaintiffs contaminated property, deal with the water issues above
and compensate Remington for his related damages described below.
11
458. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conduct as stated above, affected and continues to
12
affect the community-at-large in that defendant has created a danger to the public and has harmed
13
the surrounding environment by their deposits of hazardous and other adverse substances ON
14
Remingtons land and adjacent to and directly above a known watercourse. Plaintiff has been
15
particularly affected by this nuisance created by defendants, because of the specific above-
16 described continuing injury to his property, and therefore he has standing to bring an action against
17 defendants for public nuisance, and has DONE that.
18 459. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur many special injuries (plus the emotional
19 distress from the leaning trees and other problems described) as a direct and proximate result of
20 this public nuisance, injuries which the general public has not suffered, and which are now
21
worsening due to the above-cited disease causes now present and prevalent, plus the blocked
development of Remington Creeks 50,000,000 gallons per year (double that in 2016-17) useful
22
human water consumption potential, BECAUSE it is now contaminated.
23
460. Defendants created, by their unlawful, unpermitted, hazardous dumping, disposal, filling,
24
grading and permanent concealed BURIAL operations, a local version of Love Canal and/or Times
25
Beach, on BOTH properties. In that process they deliberately and carefully selected, meticulously
26
placed (according to John Mathsons testimony), stored, buried and then deliberately COVERED
27 those crimes with redwood slash, blackberries, ivy and weeds, after sorting and placing the WORST
28 contaminants and MOST hazardous materials (asbestos, lead, benzene, ecoli/coliform, concentrated
HCs and USTs, etc) on Remingtons land. FINALLY, defendants further fraudulently and
conspiratorially concealed their criminal burial grounds and today the have established a collusive,
perjurious COVER-UP of the whole process, crimes and individual conspirators, now involving about
ten (10) people, led by the unethical, lyin Russell Gans who coordinates the current deceptive and
157
1
false line between all the named defendants. That would be expected from a RICO racketeering
2
enterprise Mafia-like Godfather who orchestrates this now mostly corrupt and disingenuous extortive
3
attack on Remingtons property and just lawsuits.
4
461. Today, Defendantss COVER-UP of their crimes by, without limitation: Actionable
5
intimidations, exactions and extortion of Remington and his witnesses (like Bob Figas, Remington
6 himself, Tidwell, Bianca and Mike Foget); serial felony vandalisms against Remington by John
7 Mathson and his complained of substance-abusing Westgate gang; by their many forms of
8 RETALIATION, frivolous, ridiculous, and FALSE litigatory charges (i.e. malicious prosecution
9 and serial perjury by all their trial witnesses, except Pulley so far), and likely WORSE in the future;
10 serial suborning of perjury in the numerous types of obstruction of justice, evidence spoliation, etc.,
as more thoroughly detailed in the RICO statement, which was mostly drafted months after
11
this paragraph.
12
462. As described best, and in the most current detail in the 2014-16 FAC, cumulatively, the
13
above unwanted, unauthorized or condoned CRIMINAL ACTS against Plaintiff and this
14
community created conditions on Remingtons land and in this neighborhood which, by inspection,
15
WERE and still are today:
16 463. Harmful to: Remingtons health (VERY) and to that of all up-wind residents of the
17 Westgate community, Hilma Dr. and related environs, from tiny, many of which are submicroscopic,
18 blowing air-borne asbestos fibers, PAHs, benzene and lead vapors, airborne E. coli coliform and
19 associated lab-verified fungi, viruses and fine asphalt dusts, etc. said the above contamination with
20 hazardous and nonnative materials are also harmful to all users of Californias public sea-level water
21
courses which interface with Elk River, Humboldt Bay, the Pacific Ocean and environs from
dissolved or otherwise water-borne concentrated HCs, lead, toxic metals and epidemiclevel
22
human sewage bacteria, etc., as explained in more detail throughout these documents.
23
464. Indecent and Offensive to the Senses, as related to severe toxicity, infectious disease
24
carrying, other invisible to the naked-eye infection and disease-carrying pathogens, ODORS
25
(especially offensive in a massive rose, flower and fragrant tree blossom garden), and nasty-looking
26
turbidity and discolored waters, as per the several thousand photos in the case since 2008, and to be
27 supplemented. See volume III to this complaint for a very few of the more than 10,000 photos,
28 diagrams and artistic representations of various aspects of these contaminated dumps, plus the further
thousands of photographic views and portrayals of the adjacent and associated developed areas of
both properties involved in this litigation.
465. An Obstruction to the Free Use of Remingtons Property and the Publics use of its
waterways, below Remington Creek, which includes all fisheries, oyster and clam beds, millions of
158
1
crabs, etc. As complained in the 2014 FAC: 277-289, and above. John Mathsons and RAOs
2
continuous Intimidation and Vandalisms (of Remington, Figas, SHN, etc.) and overall noticeably
3
organized and orchestrated conspiracy to cover-up and keep their serious CRIMES buried and
4
concealed indefinitely were intended to scare Remington away, harass, intimidate and extort him to
5
gradually or suddenly break his spirit and resolve, but have mostly had the OPPOSITE effect, as
6 explained herein. Simply put, as further explained in extreme, painful and at times horrible detail for
7 10 years, Remington cannot use his property remotely as intended, nor can he sell it to get AWAY
8 from defendants enterprise. Remington now cannot escape these these criminals which include the
9 nasty Mathsons, Gans and his Mitchell firm criminal leadership, and ALL of their other associated
10 criminal minions, gangs, soldiers and pose, now numbering at least 30 at this time, and until
Remingtons land is CLEANED-UP. After that, why would Remington hang-around this nasty,
11
aesthetically unpleasant, ruthless and mean-spirited neighborhood, led by criminals John & Joy
12
Mathson, Kishpaugh, Evans and a variety of other associated rock musicians, driveway mechanics,
13
alcoholics and drug users, which have come and gone over the years, but which are centered at 778
14
Westgate Drive, which is the Mathsons development, sheds and drug laboratories?
15
466. Said above Defendants contaminating conditions: affected and continue to affect a
16 substantial number of people in all directions from here, as cited to above, who can and DO
17 inhale windblown asbestos fibers, PAHs, asphalt dusts and other pathogens, including children
18 DIRECTLY above and close to the dumps friable asbestos. As per the FAC, and above, WATER
19 from Mathsons dump area contaminates Remingtons land before rapidly flowing, in HUGE
20 amounts each year, into Remington Creek creating a now SHN declared and WRITTEN
21
Imminent Threat, which only Remington is now left alive to reassert, whereas Aveggio should be
still shouting that, were he alive. Said waterborne dissolved, floated and otherwise transported toxins
22
from defendants unlawful Class I landfill then adversely impact all users of Elk River, Humboldt
23
Bay and beyond as described, and which is also quite obvious;
24
467. ANYONE thereafter, including Remington or any other ordinary person would be
25
reasonably annoyed and disturbed by defendants serious, criminal contamination, (as sworn to
26
by Aveggio, himself an exceptional perhaps, but ordinary man), and implicit in the FAC and all
27 other case documents for 8 years is that Remington was just as annoyed as anyone else in Eureka
28 would be if they discovered 55-dump-loads of TOXIC and hazardous materials buried and concealed
in their gardens, one fine morning;
468. Defendants HARM to Remington and the People was and continues to be SERIOUS.
defendants hazardous landfill has no more redeeming merits than a suicide bomber on the Fourth of
July. Defendants attorneys blatant attempts to ridicule and minimize the volume, toxicity and
159
1
supposedly remote location as fully excusing defendants criminal acts are unconvincing and will be
2
DEFEATED by a dramatic jury presentation. Mathsons dump lies barely 200 feet from Remingtons
3
main central offices and is a central irrigation and path HUB.
4
469. No Permission or CONSENT was ever given, rather obviously, for Defendants massive
5
criminal dumping, disposal and trespassing violations, resulting in nuisances. The 2015 SA SS, pages
6 14-20 put that BEST as to logic as does ALL evidentiary Deposition testimony BACK-UP that FACT.
7 Remington will make easy prey of Skillings false self-serving testimony drafted by Gans, next time for
8 an obsolete purpose. Skillings was Gans only 2008 device to attempt to falsely prove that Remington
9 had consented to defendants contamination of his land, however Skillings is now fully refuted and will
10 be proven as a perjurer in the next trial. Therefore, Gans like Dr. Frankenstein had to invent a perjuring
monster to supplant Skillings now refuted perjury, and John Mathson was elected to that role, as
11
discussed in the RICO statement. Next time, we will be prepared for John Mathson and effectively
12
destroy him, which when accomplished will send him to prison, as well as well as Joy Mathson, if
13
she continues to back him and them up, also as explained in the RICO statement. Since she is not
14
really criminal or fully corrupt like Gans and the rest of them, which she does going forward as
15
regards to federal imprisonable perjury will be of considerable interest. The bottom line is that
16 even the perjuring John Mathson never claimed that Remington gave him permission to do anything
17 and the false fabricated statement attributed to Remington by Mathson, that you said, you aint got
18 no problem with it, is obviously not Remingtons language, terminology and will never fly with a
19 big city federal, sophisticated jury made up of many professionals.
20 470. Remingtons personal harm incurred was similar, but different and of MUCH
21
GREATER magnitude than that suffered by the public at large, as clearly described in DETAIL in
the 2015 SA filed documents, included by reference, and herein. This entire neighborhood, and people
22
downstream in all directions were affected, and ALL continue today to be adversely impacted, and
23
need an Injunction.
24
471.The leaning trees affect plaintiff and his visitors only, and although the tree that DID FALL
25
already fell NW and across the fence and well-onto Mathsons land, as well as across 60 feet of
26
Remingtons did not kill anyone, it certainly would have had someone been there at the time. That
27 one fell enigmatically during 2015 for no apparent reason, and with no noticed storm causing it.
28 472. Remington being much closer to, and actually living IN the hazardous contaminated wastes,
and with infection and contagion directly proportional to the SQUARE root of the distance (i.e.,
inversely to the square), naturally he suffered the worst and has been violently ill, repeatedly.
Therefore, under any criteria, Remington has suffered special injuries different from and much
WORSE than the average injuries suffered by the public, which confirmation thereof does not
160
1
currently exist but could be obtained, and WILL be documented. Before the next trial, Remington
2
expects to make the time to go around circulating HIS (drafted) petition. Then, if he takes the time to
3
spend 15 minutes per resident discussing all aspects and questions surrounding these cases and what
4
that petition is FOR, he also intends to kill two birds with one stone and simultaneously accumulate
5
some crude local health histories, in order to locate a few other adjacent residents who have been
6 deleteriously afflicted by this dump. Happily, dilution by increased water volume in winter and
7 distance occurs with regards to the waterborne contamination, and dissipation of asbestos and the toxic
8 vapors occurs into the trees and beyond. Those natural factors benefit the greater community and
9 reduce fatalities, severe diseases or respiratory illnesses, however none of those factors benefit
10 Plaintiff, who is much too close to escape the toxicity and is perpetually and inescapably IN the
dangerous pathogenic, toxicity and maximum contamination zones for both air and water born
11
infectious substances. Also Remington must handle plants, materials, supplies, tools and pipes which
12
are in DIRECT contact with the essentially invisible to the human eye microscopic infectious
13
pathogens, airborne asbestos and disease-causing agents here, and cannot wear rubber gloves all of the
14
time, but does much of the time.
15
473. Defendants felonious trespassing CONDUCT was clearly the ONLY known or possible
16 fact which could have caused these harms, nuisances and the symptoms complained of because they
17 admittedly committed the original trespasses which continue today in variable magnitude. No one
18 ELSE has ever been accused of causing these trespasses and their nuisances aftermath, and Defendants
19 have tried every possible accusation and defense for 8 years, but have come-up empty. Gans tries to
20 blame Remington for everything that goes wrong on both sites, but scientifically that wont fly and his
21
experts are not going to perjure themselves deeper and risk federal imprisonment backing-up
obviously frivolous, absurd and unscientific incompetent lies and attempt to support Gans patently
22
obvious absence of any valid scientific defense. Defendants original dumping and present criminal,
23
intimidating COVER-UPS, on-going continuing civil conspiracy and 1998+ criminal burial and
24
concealment of their illicit treasure of highly toxic poisons and pathogens, were the original causes
25
of ALL problems here, as no one else had huge machine access to Mathsons site to deposit 700+
26
TONS of contaminants. Further, in the August 2016 SOL trial, Gans and all the defendants fully
27 admitted that they deposited the materials which now exist on Remingtons land, and although
28 attempting to followed Gans obviously FALSE scripts, of understating the volume and toxicity and
then fraudulently interpreting, describing and flagrantly minimizing it, that will not work anymore.
That is because we have thousands of photographs and about a dozen experts that will testify to the
truth of what they have seen and concerning what has been measured there scientifically in dozens of
tests. That 700-1200 tons of hazardous and unwanted defendants substances included over ONE
161
1
MILLION pounds of poisons, deadly hazardous materials, pollutants and miscellaneous harmful
2
contaminants capable of killing wild animals (which has 100% happened), most plants directly in
3
their path or drainage, and certainly people, quite easily. NO LAWS and no EXCEPTIONS exonerate
4
defendants or ANY of them, including Joy Mathson, who may be the least culpable of all currently,
5
however she was primed, ready and eager to perjure herself at the August 2016 SOL trial but
6 miraculously she was spared by each side for different tactical reasons. That will be very different in
7 the federal trial and federal depositions. She is arguably an extremely pivotal figure in these litigations:
8 She was right there planning and waiting for virtually EVERY illegal load, every illegal burial on
9 Remingtons land, and every vandalism, and she poured her heart out rather honestly under Harvey
10 Roberts limited but effective deposition questioning, which relatively honest and candid responses
can never again be put back into the bottle as she would prefer, and undoubtably attempt going
11
forward. That would be a big mistake. Ignorance, as often inferred by Mrs. Mathson is little excuse
12
for defendants major, multiple CRIMES, over many years, which she was fully complicit with,
13
knowledgeable about and very excited about overall. [See 2014 FAC: 254-258, 2015 SA-SS, entire
14
RICO statement, ETC, for more].
15
474. Defendants Public Nuisance was massive, SUBSTANTIAL and UNREASONABLE and
16 continues its damages today. The above and private nuisance discussions plus the FAC all prove that
17 the surrounding collective social interests and health of all, including Remington have been
18 substantially to profoundly negatively affected. No one has or CAN argue that defendants were
19 reasonable in their criminal violations, which per se violations alone, PROVE that society does NOT
20 believe any aspect of defendants operation was legal, reasonable or acceptable on any level.
21
Remington himself has been nearly killed here several times from recent falls and/or factors
attributable to the dumps and he has personally seen the former prolific wildlife of ALL Humboldt
22
varieties drop to virtually ZERO here at Remington Creek.
23
475. Plaintiff requests against ALL named Defendants, the same above Injunctive Relief above
24
and virtually the same nearly indistinguishable Damages here as for Private Nuisance, so said
25
DAMAGES are all included by reference HERE, as set-forth above, AROUND SECTIONS #448-
26
454.
27 Abatement here (still) means, as above: Removing, cleaning-up or remediating the nuisance
28 which violates the laws cited, which specifically entails, in part, excavating-out (with a long-reach,
large bucket, very heavy-duty, very stable, SAFE excavator) onto trucks the 1.4-2 (as of 12-5-15)
million pounds of non-native materials deposited on Remingtons land by defendants, much of it in
giant concrete and iron, asbestos and asphalt chunks. If everything is removed from the mountainside

162
1
and trucked-out then the hazardous materials can be sorted-out on the flats above, in Hazmat suits and
2
respirators and properly handled.
3
476. EVERYTHING must be removed just to get to the asbestos pipes buried the deepest, plus
4
all contaminated soils, debris and toxic junk need to be removed from that site. Finally, ALL
5
groundwater flowing underneath Mathsons dump, from Mathsons property, at the native soils
6 interface must be intercepted by said above perforated pipe inside Mathsons new retaining wall, from
7 where it flows by gravity either onto Remingtons property, for treatment and recycling for irrigation,
8 or onto Mathsons, and beyond, as described above.
9 477. Abatement ALSO, still means cutting down Mathsons very dangerous leaning trees as
10 topping the Alders is too expensive and likely insufficient.

478. Aveggios 2011 RAP set forth our 2011 plan, which at some point will need to be confirmed
11
and probably increased some, due to inflation, for removing all contaminated soils from Remingtons
12
land and disposing of them at a landfill, SEE #452 ABOVE FOR DETAILED DISCUSSIONS
13
ABOUT THAT ONLY REMEDIATION PLAN IN THESE CASES, NOT REPEATED HERE.
14
479. Additional water remedial measures now required. Said 2011 SHN RAP was completed
15
in late June 2011 and was based only upon all soil knowledge then available, and was completed
16 before the SHN and County water tests. Unfortunately, Aveggio prematurely died before we could
17 update the entire report to include water remediation, inferentially from infectious conditions on these
18 sites from which he never recovered. SHNs RAP was predicated upon the concept that removal of
19 Remingtons contaminated soils, as well as retaining Mathsons onto his land (with a wall built at his
20 additional expense), and then properly draining the area, would mostly resolve the lower water issues.
21
The contaminated magnitude of Remingtons lower Springs and swamp was not fully known in June
2011, or until Aveggios August 1-2, 2011 water tests.
22
480. As above, inflation, time and Aveggios death and Fogets transfer may have rendered that
23
bid too LOW today, so Dr. McEdwards will look at the entire project again focused largely on the
24
water data we now have, before the next contamination trial.
25
481. $250,000 is still Remingtons current best estimate FOR FULL LONG-TERM SOIL AND
26
WATER REMEDIATION which will be made exact to the dollar by trial, and presumably will need to
27 be increased somewhat for 6-10 years of inflation, and some further hillside destabilization and other
28 deteriorating site conditions.
482. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONTINUING TRESPASS, CACI 2000

Plaintiff incorporates each allegation contained in the general allegations above and below, as
well as ALL of the other related, relevant words in these documents, Plus ALL of the thousands of
163
1
pages of filed and SWORN documents in this case since 2008, and all references to previous 2014-
2
16 SA/SJ Appendices where needed, as if set-out at length here, with the more recent documents
3
given priority if inconsistent with 2008-11 documents, where all facts were not yet established
4
(2011) and the RICO enterprise was merely in an embryonic stage, whereas today, 2017, it is a
5
fully developed and rapidly growing MONSTER.
6 483. Actual, definite TOTAL Remington damages cannot be specified or even guesstimated until
7 the Court makes its RENZ ruling concerning WHAT years damages are allowed in this Continuing
8 trespass and nuisance case, which presumably, for efficiency, should run through trial and all appeals.
9 484. Plaintiff alleges that defendants deliberate, intentional felonious conduct including without
10 limitation: the dumping, disposal, burying and further deliberate fraudulent criminal, conspiratorial
CONCEALMENT of contaminated, polluted and hazardous, plus related rocky, toxic, poisonous
11
and/or other UNWANTED non-native substances onto and INTO plaintiffs land, and the resulting
12
miscellaneous movements (under all possible scientific principles and mechanisms) and discharges of
13
dissolved, ionized, precipitated, and other mostly, but obviously not only, gravity-driven forms of
14
migrating toxins, into plaintiffs top soil, ground water and irrigation water as above and herein
15
alleged. The above generally described wrongful acts of remediable continuing trespass onto and into
16 plaintiffs property, have for 18 years interfered with and continue to interfere with plaintiffs right to
17 use and occupy his own property28. After heroic attempts to develop and USE said contaminated land,
18 all such attempts have been abandoned. It is fruitless, impossible until removal of about 10 DEEP of
19 contaminated rocky, DEAD materials. As described and complained, said area also gravely threatens
20 Remingtons health and he is afraid to work in or breath air in that vicinity for long, if at all, due to
21
the described physical symptoms and near fatal illnesses contracted as a result of Remingtons last
serious contacts with soils, waters, bacteria and asbestos particles in that area between 2013-15. Thus,
22
NONE of said encroached land is now usable or VISITABLE for long, by anyone. The leaning trees
23
at the southwest edge of this area are also dangerous deleterious factors when any kind of a wind is
24
blowing.
25
485. Plaintiff alleges that he has been damaged to a degree still presently unknown, as a result of
26
Defendants wrongful trespass and interference with plaintiffs rights of private occupancy of his
27 OWN property. To make Remingtons damages specific, a Renz-term ruling is now clearly
28 required as explained above. Said Renz-term ruling was requested by independent motion in the
28 Remington hereby further includes by reference his entire DR080678 2015 SA Motion,
especially the SS and M of P & A which were focused very specifically on 2008 Trespass
elements, Damages, evidence, Deposition Testimony and sworn Admissions which closely
parallel the trial proofs required here, see e.g. Remingtons SS dated 5/25/15, pages 1-61, and at
106 and FAC Appendix 72-75, for general background facts.
164
1
state court, however it has so far been ignored, and now as alleged above is ripe for a badly needed
2
conclusive decision here.
3
486. Plaintiff is informed and therefore believes, and on that basis alleges, that unless admonished
4
and ordered by this court, or related governmental body, defendants will continue to trespass against
5
plaintiffs property indefinitely. Such trespassory conduct by defendants will result and now already
6 HAS RESULTED in irreparable harm to plaintiff, in that: Plaintiff has become physically weakened,
7 seriously ILL (as explained), accident prone, in lower light, for falls on this dangerous property, and
8 therefore has now become restricted from developing his land according to his plans, as well as
9 suffering from the other impairing physical and emotional maladies delineated above. Nothing fruitful
10 or intended now grows on or even near the dump, or maybe will ever grow properly in most of that
area, because roses, hydrangeas, fruit trees and most desired vegetation do not grow well or at all in
11
soil heavily-saturated with used motor oil, diesel, asphalt and gigantic concrete chunks. But
12
Remington tried very hard to make that land work for 6-8 years, but despite numerous extraordinary
13
efforts by plaintiff in bringing-in topsoil, fertilizer, mulches and subterranean water, after 10+ years of
14
difficult, extraordinary efforts and development, all Remingtons planning efforts have failed in the
15
Mathsons dump areas and adjacent thereto, and as explained above Remington formerly gave up on
16 that area in 2015. Defendants toxic wastes will continue (per 2008), and by 2016 HAVE severely
17 continued indefinitely to dissolve, move downhill by gravity and otherwise move into Remingtons
18 formerly pristine ephemeral creek and groundwater, which he uses for irrigating 15,000+ major
19 plants and also is used fruitfully by the people of California, severely adversely impacting all wetlands
20 and fisheries below, as complained.
21
487. Defendants have egregiously violated all of the basic elements of a trespass, as follows.
TRESPASS ELEMENTS:
22
488. The elements of a CACI 200 Trespass (1-7), as applied here, are all present:
23
A. Ownerships. Remington owned and controlled the subject property at 832 Westgate
24
trespassed upon and later conspiratorially covered-up by ALL named environmental and RICO
25
Defendants; and, the Mathsons owned the land where ALL original violations occurred and then
26
spread-out from, at 778 Westgate. From Mathsons backyard, Remingtons adjacent 3 acres of land
27 was substantially invaded, as described above and in the cited documents.
28 489. Defendants massive trespass admittedly, purportedly began in 1998 and continued its
damaging effects through 2016 and well-into 2017 now. As best described in detail in the 2015
summary adjudication (SA) documents (ALL included by reference), defendants Mathsons and RAO
intentionally, recklessly and possibly to a small extent even negligently ENTERED Remingtons
property with massive volumes of illegal, controlled, hazardous, contaminated and polluted non-native
165
1
substances, BURIED them, further fraudulently and criminally (and civilly) conspiratorially
2
CONCEALED them in an important section of Remingtons land, which defendants plots are now
3
unraveling. Simultaneously, John Mathson kept Remingtons mind confused, distracted and pre-
4
occupied with frequent MAJOR, costly, time-consuming vandalisms, requiring immediate attention
5
by Remington, which like fires always require immediate suppression and mitigation focus. It took a
6 while to understand Gans overall extortive master plan, but it was demonic, clever and criminal from
7 its systematic inception with its roots in about 2011, but was not clearly and overtly extortive until
8 2012. Defendants also intimidated expert contractor Figas in late 2012 and throughout the spring of
9 2013, and easily chased him away with a few phone calls and other confrontations. Defendants
10 trespassing materials are ONLY consistent with gas-station remediation HC-wastes. There is no way
to artificially manufacture such huge quantities of hydrocarbon soils with the signatures of degraded
11
molecular weights from the 1930s-70s. There is no other explanation than that Mathsons highly
12
contaminated fill came from remediated gas stations, and defendants have offered no other
13
alternative or explanation, because with a biased court they have not needed to do much of anything.
14
490. No Consent given. As per the 2014 FAC, 2015 SA SS, (ID), the Courts filed record, and the
15
2016 TRIAL records, Remington did not give permission for that entry, tacitly or otherwise, he did not
16 acquiesceTo anything, never saw any trespasses whatsoever until January 2006, nor was he even on
17 his property at all for 98+ % of the time, that defendants industrial fill project was purportedly
18 going-on. As explained in hundreds of pages, in 1998 Remington was working at and moving the Burl
19 Tree, as its sole employee, and close the store at dark during the summer and fall and never arrived at
20 Westgate until dark or very close to it. Remington especially and absolutely NEVER said I aint got
21
no problem with it and he never uses that type of ignorant, uneducated John Mathson terminology
and never had any conversations AT ALL with John Mathson in 1998 or for several years thereafter.
22
In Ivy League liberal arts colleges nobody talks like that. Hence, and in other words, Mathsons
23
summer 2016 fabricated, coached PERJURY which differed somewhat each day Remington
24
interrogated him about it at length, was OUTRAGEOUS and will NOT STAND. Eventually it will
25
sink the entire conspiracy, which Gans is captain of and hopefully it will involved MAJOR
26
sanctions, penalties, prison terms and the loss of 2-3 licenses to practice law in this town. As
27 explained and speculated at length in the RICO statement, how many of the enterprise members are
28 going to want to stake their freedom from prison on Mathsons ability to continue his perjury and
invent new consistent perjury which comports with his false testimony from August 2016, will be very
interesting to watch, encourage and otherwise to participate in.
491. Remington ultimately surprisingly discovered the tip of the iceberg of the environmental
defendants criminal hauling and disposal activities for the first time in 2006. Even today, we cannot
166
1
actually see with our eyes an estimated 98.5% of the hazardous debris, but have accurately delineated
2
its extent by methods of, without limitation: Hand-dug testing holes, noting the change of the hills
3
profile; the depth of debris up numerous trees, and importantly how far East, South and WEST the
4
debris extends and to what depth; the inferred size of gigantic debris which is either flush with the
5
ground surface or protrudes only a few inches; and many other geological and civil engineering field
6 estimating volume factors, which John Aveggio did substantially in his head based on several dozen
7 prior excavation projects where he could correlate the initial visual appearance with the actual
8 numbersOf dump truck lows which are ultimately removed from other similar remediations.
9 Remingtons more accurate and detailed mathematical volume and weight measurements involved
10 dozens of pages of small solid geometrical areas of the dump which could be accurately calculated and
then added-up. Ultimately those calculations were based on solid geometry, which is based on accurate
11
measurements in all three parameters and the plane geometry and trigonometry of the angles of the
12
site. After the specific smaller areas of the site are accurately calculated than they are summed-up in a
13
summation equation which is simplified in a calculus equation. Here, however Remington did not
14
use calculus but a more accurate and methodical measurement of adding up the various solid figures,
15
prisms and other components which made up the entire dumpsite. Remingtons initial 2010-11
16 calculations using that method yielded a result of 565 yd. of debris which conformed with SHNs
17 over 500 yards very accurate field estimate. Subsequently, however Remington had reason to
18 question the depth measurements in the heart of the dump and in 2015 he did more hand-excavations
19 and then bored another 4-foot deep with a half inch drill and 1 inch diameter bit, recorded on video, on
20 the downhill side of a redwood tree without ever striking native soils. Eventually that whole was
21
aborted like every other boring on that site by hitting concrete, asphalt or some other undrillable
material, without using carbide, diamond and a much more powerful machine. Remington did
22
conclude from that boring that the fill could easily be twice as deep overall than what was previously
23
estimated and if so that what exactly double the estimated volume of encroachment up into the
24
thousand cubic yard range, which is the presently believed upper limit of defendants trespassing
25
encouragement.
26
492. Remington was actually severely HARMED by defendants trespasses, which damages
27 continue into 2016, and as described in the entire 2008-2016 Courts record, are also included here by
28 reference, and outlined on the last several pages herein.
493. The above-requested INJUNCTIVE RELIEF versus a to be calculated at trial
RESTITUTION sum is also appropriate here and is similarly requested for TRESPASS as it was
for the two Nuisance allegations, see Special Jury Instruction in DR080678 #25: SJI 2000A-
Unjust enrichment of all Defendants due to trespass and the intentional criminal acts of
167
1
encroachment and intent to use Remingtons land for their WORST imported hazardous materials.
2
Obviously, with these overlapping damage requests, each type of relief is only requested and due
3
ONCE, not 5-10 times under each allegation. However, it is requested fairly and justly ONCE, not
4
ZERO or never.
5
494. Defendants were the ONLY cause of Remingtons harms, as no other access to the sites
6 exists other than from Mathsons backyard DUMPING ZONES. Additionally, defendants (and
7 ALL of them) caused every allegation, trespass, entry, immoral conduct, illegal hauling, dumping and
8 disposal of hazardous materials in a residential redwood forest. Their illicit, fully deliberate, unlawful
9 machinery operation, grading and filling operations, were all done behind dense screens of trees while
10 Remington was always away in daylight, and defendants were not ONLY a substantial factor in said
harm and deliberate unlawful torts, but were the ONLY possible cause of Rs harms. Remingtons
11
2003 impeachment photographs prove that the visual barriers between the two properties prevented
12
Remington from seeing a defendants fill project, even if he had been there in daylight and staring in
13
that direction. Also in daylight Remington might have heard something at some point, but never did
14
he ever see or hear a truck at Mathsons property, in any year, ever. Even the one time which he caught
15
a brief glimpse of a machine operating in Mathsons backyard about 10 minutes before full darkness,
16 he heard nothing because he was on a 15 foot tall 983-type loader himself operating by headlights and
17 could hear nothing beyond his own machine, is not looking for anything else either. Even defendants
18 attorneys have never created or imagined any other valid possibility about where defendants 4000 or
19 more cubic yards of debris came from. Gans has fraudulently attempted in his severance motion and in
20 DR 080669 to directly and ridiculously state that Remington caused all pollution on both sides of the
21
ravine and therefore what have had to hand-carry by wheelbarrow at least 100,000 loads across the
creek, deep gorge, down and over the 30-foot deep, dangerous piles of burl and then up a mountain
22
onto Mathsons land and get away with it, despite Mathsons 3-4 yapping guard dogs! Gans corrupt
23
RICO enterprise has also previously strained in their reliance upon, without limitation: Their experts
24
false and sophistic statements of volume, toxicity, magnitude, severity, reasonableness; plus Skillings
25
(crucial) perjured account of purportedly getting Remingtons permission (but provably not until at
26
least seven years later if at all) to ruin his own property, get fined or arrested by California Fish and
27 game for polluting his pristine Creek; and their ridiculous concept that Remington would have ever
28 wanted to or granted permission to turn his entire unique, park -like ESTATE, also into a toxic waste
dump, like the Mathsons did with their land. Skillings defies credulity and Remington had never met
him until he was interrogated in August 2016.
495. Remediation is the only meaningful initial REMEDY. Defendants tortful trespasses have
now encroached on and interfered with the possession of about one-half acre total of Remingtons
168
1
valuable agriculturally-used property and prevents his uses as desired, preferred, planned and are
2
reasonable. Defendants trespass to Plaintiffs waters was, and continues below the grounds surface, at
3
it and above, with asphalt, silica dusts and asbestos particles blowing-up towards Westgate in the
4
prevailing winds. Remington still owns that now negative-valued dumped-on land, because defendants
5
refused to BUY it, rendering Remingtons ENTIRE estate unsalable, and now causing an
6 approximately $250-300,000 total reduction of RE value, as of 2011, per Remingtons preeminent
7 local residential real estate appraiser, DAVID TIDWELL, A-159A, etc, until abatement is completed,
8 officially signed-off, and indemnified.
9 496. ALSO, Remingtons health desperately requires immediate removal of all known and
10 unknown contaminants, as he cannot now properly maintain any of his lands on Mathsons side of
the ravine.
11
THEREFORE, Plaintiff now seeks REMEDIATION of his impacted soils and waters and
12
restoration back to its original pristine condition and for his costs as above; plus RESTITUTION
13
equivalent to the sum of RAOs and Mathsons illegal profits, versus the DAMAGES outlined
14
above, to the full extent permitted by law, without involving any Double recoveries.
15
16 15. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ABATEMENT OF CONTINUING TRESPASS

17 497. The elements of continuing trespass, damages and factual basis for same were all discussed
18 above and/or provided in even more evidentiary detail, so defendants know what they will need to
19 defend at trial, in the thousands of pages of cited, related case documents since 2008. All still apply,
20 especially the sworn ones, however facts, evidence, assumptions and virtually all case details have
21
evolved naturally in 8 years, as would be expected in any contentious, complex, dynamic case. In other
words, ALL general allegations from 2008-2016 remain unchanged, but the emphasis, magnitude,
22
themes and deliberate CRIMINAL greedy unlawful intentions of defendants has shifted and
23
become better understood, but Remingtons investigations are by no means completed. They still
24
evolve and all case knowledge will be deepened by DR140426 Discovery, so far blocked by defendants,
25
and later by this Court.
26
498. Abatement or remediation of Defendants trespass can be accomplished in many ways as
27 above. If a retaining wall is not ordered by this Court independently, then after (or before) a positive
28 jury verdict, Remington will just START his excavating cleanup. That is already well-planned and
started, but got rained-out VERY narrowly in November 2015, so well wait for summer 2016 now
to get in there, and start serious excavations. Likely well just make a vertical excavation at the
property line and then see what happens. At that point defendants could erect a retaining wall easily
from THEIR side, but if they elect NOT to, then we will still attempt to lay drainage pipe and
169
1
eventually begin a new lawsuit for further continuing trespasses from probable landslides, unless Ds
2
at some point wish to get into the spirit of this remediation, assist Remington and the community,
3
cleanup contaminated water, cooperate and finalize this.
4
499. Remington will attempt to make a suitable wall, ELIMINATING future landslide issues, part
5
of any jury verdict or Court Injunction in ANY of these cases, but results there are uncertain today29.
6 500. State continuing nuisance and trespass complex damages for the years 2013-2016,
7 under CACI 2030 are respectfully requested to be heard and adjudicated HERE. Two other periods
8 are active still today in State Court but getting nowhere at the moment with a trifurcated trial barely
9 begun but with no qualified judge to administer same at present. That may change, but it appears
10 today that the federal system is better staffed, more competent and more capable of determining
complex contested issues more reasonably and expeditiously, especially where the tricky, unethical,
11
but very powerful Eureka Mitchell firm is involved and implicated here in deep unscrupulous and
12
unlawful behavior. No judge, law firm or other force in Eureka perhaps, appears to be willing or
13
independently powerful enough to stand-up to the mighty, influential Brisso or Gans, hence none try.
14
BOTH said attorneys have well-established, authenticated by Judge Marilyn Miles and court and
15
therefore proven ethical and honesty shortcomings in these cases, especially GANS, whose crowning
16 career achievement to date is suborning perjury in five (5) simultaneously coached witnesses,
17 beginning two weeks before trial, with further unethical surprise and enormous prejudice, and then
18 beautifully and flawlessly getting away with it, so far. The awesome power of Gans and Brisso in
19 Eureka can be compared to Don Corleones in The Godfather, where the other mafia families
20 complained that Corleone had all of the New York City judges in his pocket but refused to share
21
them with the new drug-based families, which selfishness led to numerous assassinations and related
problems. How many judges does the Mitchell firm have in its pocket?
22
501. As an alternative calculation to Trespass and/or Nuisance damages, Remington requests
23
that after a trial a detailed restitution calculation is made and then compared to said
24
nuisance/trespass damages and which ever is GREATER can be recovered by Remington.
25
26
16. UNJUST ENRICHMENT versus RESTITUTION
27
29 See SJI #31, 2000-G for additional details about the extreme importance ideally of overall
28 planning and coordination between the parties and insurance companies before any hazardous
debris is removed and Mathsons structures above are jeopardized. Conversely, the Mathsons and
their attorneys need to realistically start cooperating because had it not rained one Saturday in
early November, discouraging Remingtons contractor Mr. Marsh from bringing-in his excavator
to develop the road into the landfill as CONTRACTED, wed already be at an entirely different
stage of progress with remediation, and concern and anxiety from the Mathsons, about the next 4
rainfall or 7.3 earthquake.
170
1
(Restitution is not a Cause of Action according to State Judge Reinholtsen, but see also page 57).
2
Remington re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every foregoing and subsequent
3
paragraph of this complaint, Volumes I- III, as if set forth in full.
4
502. Unjust Profits v. Damages. Remington requests a Court or jury ORDER requiring that
5
defendants PAY Remington RESTITUTION by disgorging to Remington and/or paying all of
6 defendants cumulative unjust profits and projected high six-figure illicit GAINS to Remington, IF they
7 exceed his compensatory Damages. Although Remington subpoenaed Rich Olson for the 2016
8 contamination trial, to attempt to learn everything possible from him, said trial never occurred in 2016
9 andInferentially may never occur because Judge Reinholtsen appears ready to capitulate further to the
10 Mitchell firms believed multiple legal errors in DR 080678. I if said above trial is ever held in Eureka
then it is anticipated that he will refuse to incriminate himself if possible, and therefore Remington will
11
still need to patiently wait for specific DR 140426 discovery of all defendants documents, witnesses,
12
scientific borings on Mathsons land, and accounting details from all named defendants here, when that is
13
re-opened after the 2016 trial.
14
503. Defendants seek to wrongfully obtain many hundreds of thousands of dollars from
15
Remington through their deceptive and fraudulent defensive litigatory tactics since 2007 and their
16 extortive RICO racketeering enterprise since 2012. Defendants have already been and will continue to
17 be unjustly enriched from any benefits obtained herein, plus they have already reaped enormous savings
18 from not paying-out any cleanup or just damages to Remington to date. At the time of trial, Remington
19 will want to compare defendants unjust profits against his rightful statutory damages, plus interest and
20 then make the restitution calculation which will award him the higher of the two amounts.
21
504. Perhaps with IRS assistance, during future discovery, we will accurately reconstruct and
account for all Mathsons and RAOs taxable and ACTUAL profits, including an analysis, appraisal
22
of the sequence and development costs of all RAO/Olsons residential RE lots and equipment
23
purchases plus that of their employees and relatives, including the large succession of houses built by
24
his corporation, close together along Walnut Drive, inferentially mostly from said illegal profits.
25
505. All unjust cash profits must be accurately determined, added-up and compared to
26
Remingtons complex and numerous compensatory and punitive damages for the relevant time period,
27 per Renz.
28 506. Punitive damages may be awarded here, as a deterrent/punishment to RAO and others like
him out there. defendants state of mind, hostility, obvious admissions, cognizance of criminality,
intentionality of their torts and deliberate harms to Remington, the community, the environment and
California must be assessed and weighed, and only then can total awarded damages be compared to
RAO + Mathsons illegal profits.
171
1
507. Restitution is an ALTERNATIVE to Compensatory plus punitive damages, which may
2
better fulfill justice in some cases rather than other types of damages, all of which will be up to the jury.
3
508. The Mathsons magically" received the enormous benefit of a FREE $130-200,000
4
landscaping job but are sophisticated enough to understand WHY that ENORMOUS free service
5
was provided.
6 A. WAS THAT wonderful free GIFT TO THE MATHSONS DECLARED AND TAXED, by
7 any Defendant? The answer there will be explored at the 2016 trial, and MUCH further in this case.
8 Also, we already know the answer to that question, which is an emphatic NO, defendants evaded taxes.
9 509. Here, defendants torts were statutory, criminal, equitable and common law violations,
10 and their behavior was all entirely deliberate, knowing and calculated over a long period of time.
Simply put, ALL the BIG, horrible, most HAZARDOUS, TOXIC crap was pushed-off the bank onto
11
Remingtons land. Any property or money that defendants obtained or obtain in the future from
12
Remington will be and has been acquired as result of defendants tortious, illegal and fraudulent conduct
13
as set forth with particularity herein in both volumes of this complaint.
14
510. Unjust Profits of over $500,000. Cumulatively, ALL said Defendants received cash and/or
15
value added remuneration of an estimated $400,000-2,200,000 TOTAL based on Plaintiffs personal
16 expertise for 35+ years in trucking industry estimates and accounting calculations, exactly like these.
17 511. Those UNJUST defendants PROFITS were divided-up in a subjective, nebulous, complex
18 manner: The Mathsons buried and hid the CRIMES and got their coveted $150,000+ of free
19 contaminated fill for more opulent lawns, and RAO got the illicit cash to pay the over $100,000 of
20 known fixed business expenses, for a massive hauling and dumping project lasting many months.
21
512. Complex restitution profits (once they are more accurately calculated during DR140426
Discovery (or at THIS trial), ARE REQUESTED from the trier of fact at a trial, after viewing and
22
understanding: Mathsons and RAOs bank and tax records; accounting profit and loss statements;
23
ALL expenses, sales and income; and having experts carefully study and carefully appraise RAOs
24
(and Olsons) extensive RE developments, and major purchases and/or trades done during and after
25
that period, probably extensively for cash, presumably using their own corporate employee CASH
26
payroll and tax deductions to build Mr. Olsons personal residences, while RAOs depreciated and sold
27 equipment, including for scrap, and did side jobs, ETC.
28 513. Thereafter, Remingtons lawfully deserved general, special and punitive damages can be
determined by a jury verdict or other mediated resolution, and lastly compared to the above calculated
value of unjust riches, or here to RAOs and Mathsons obvious illicit profits, now well-hidden in
source and magnitude.

172
1
514. CIVIL CODE 3334 provides, in relevant part: (a) The detriment caused by the wrongful
2
occupation of real property, in cases not embraced in Section 3335 of this code, the Eminent Domain
3
Law (Title 7, 1230.010) or CCP 1174 is deemed to include the value of the use of the property for
4
the time of that wrongful occupation, not exceeding five years next preceding the commencement of
5
the action or proceeding to enforce the right to damages, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration of
6 the property to its original condition, and the costs, if any, of recovering the possession. (b) (1) Except
7 as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of subdivision (a), the value of the use of the property shall
8 be the greater of the reasonable rental value of that property or the benefits obtained by the
9 person wrongfully occupying the property by reason of that wrongful occupation. (Emphasis
10 added). Remington seeks that formula applied here, as partial basis for this restitution claim.
Here, defendants received at least an estimated total $4-700,000 of net tax-free corrupt,
11
organized-criminal-type profits and benefits above the reasonable rental value of that land,
12
even for the 16-20 years of occupancy, and certainly for the last three (3) years only.
13
515. Principles of equity and good conscience mandate that this court prevent defendants from
14
reaping any additional 6-7 figure windfalls, and any more benefits arising out of their fraudulent
15
litigations, which so far have made them substantial, mostly fraudulent money in sanctions from
16 Remington, which were not reasonably or lawfully due them. Therefore, this court should be
17 cognizant of these facts that defendants will attempt to continue to unjustly enrich themselves at every
18 opportunity going forward, now in new ways from the original Mathson and RAO defendants, and in
19 particular Gans and the Mitchell firms RICO enterprise particularly specializes in requesting
20 bogus sanctions under various frivolous guises in their every written document, whether opposition
21
or motion. In accordance with their objectives as stated in the 580+ page RICO statement, e.g 5D,
after page 400, crushing Remington financially and emotionally, and not paying-out any money for
22
cleanup, etc., involves picking-up as many thousand dollars sanction bequests as possible.
23
24
RESTITUTION IS NOW REQUESTED ON THAT BASIS.
25
516. Reasonable back RENT is now PAST DUE and requested. ADDITIONALLY, the
26
benefit to Mathson of having a totally stable back and side yard, which lateral support is FREELY,
27 but unwillingly PROVIDED by Remington since at least 1998 is still, and has been annually worth
28 at least $30-50,000 per year to the Mathsons, as will be soon discovered WHEN it is imminently
removed.
517. Here, Remington is reasonably only charging $2000/month, $24,000 per year, to keep
Mathsons house, sheds, trailer and entire estate from collapsing into Remingtons ravine. The
Mathsons got a great deal for 18+ years, but that is now ENDED.
173
1
Thats $384,000 that must be added to Remingtons compensatory damages before comparing to
2
Defendants unjust profits. It is a rather complicated computation, overall, and depends upon what a
3
Court and jury finds.
4
518. Other MONETARY restitution requested: As described below, Remington requests
5
$20,000 alone for specific RE and plant damages resulting from RAOs intimidation and extortion
6 of Skillings and the massive slide that promptly ensued as a direct EFFECT of Figas untimely
7 departure. MORE THAN 1000 cubic yards of Remingtons hillside, only 60 from his house
8 structure collapsed down mountain in late 2012. See RICO statement for the 2017 facts and
9 perspective, because when most of this section was written in 2014-15, the real ruthlessness and
10 criminality of Gans RICO enterprise was not yet understood.

519. Additionally, restitution and/or compensatory damages (see e.g. SJI 362) are requested as
11
compensation for John Mathsons AT LEAST 120, (and increasing every several days) well-
12
documented, photographed individual fence vandalisms resulting in multiple intrusions by him, and
13
also by DEER and bear, each resulting in a provable AVERAGE of at least $500-1000 of
14
DESTROYED young plants, a FELONY. That 2015 drafted figure is now MUCH HIGHER in 2017,
15
according to additional calculations around the next trial. Plaintiff spent at least $125,000 on plants and
16 related supplies during the early 2000s, about 1/3 of them now destroyed by John Mathson.
17 520. The above damaged and/or TOTALLY KILLED plants were mostly tender young roses in
18 their first struggling year, plus rare Fuchsias, exotic fragrant and non-American trees, Japanese
19 maples, 100 varieties of fruit and not trees, hundreds of Midwestern and Eastern varieties of
20 deciduous trees bushes and ground covers, more than 10,000 non-native bulbs of many species and
21
numerous other rare bear and deer delicacies. An estimated 3000 specimens, including over 1500
individual, healthy will-cared for roses were completely destroyed at a wholesale value of $12 each,
22
or about $36,000 in lost value. Remingtons multiple major nurseries are also attacked and seriously
23
damaged many times and included roses, every type of tree and bush, plus about 5000 sensitive
24
propagated plants in pots which had been started for months in the warm, nurturing inside of the
25
residence, at significant cost and extremely great difficulty. ALL OF THESE PLANT TOTALS
26
AND DAMAGE FIGURES WILL NEED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY UPDATED AT TRIAL AS
27 THEY INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY, ALMOST DAILY.
28 521. THE TOTAL request IN 2015, for plant destruction ALONE was=$20k + $36k or $56,000,
due to John Mathsons vandalisms ALONE, but have since been drastically escalated as have the
damages to much larger and more valuable plants, according to proof and various relevant Renz
time periods, as summarized below and in the RICO statement after page 520. These damages are
applicable to ALL causes of action, i.e. to any one cause or any that are GRANTED by a jury. As
174
1
above, at the appropriate time if damages are granted by the court or jury they will be recalculated as is
2
reasonably possible for various three-year or more time periods, which is a difficult and sophisticated
3
calculation and estimate to make.
4
522. John Mathsons vandalisms were, ARE and continue to be in 2016 a very determined criminal
5
strong-arm attempt to intimidate, harass, FIGHT, FORCE and criminally extort Remington to go
6 away, give-up this project, and stop blindly, without proper inner ear-directed balance any longer,
7 stumbling-on around this slippery, steep mountain, while (at night) battling against overwhelming legal
8 & financial hurdles, poor odds and strong Mitchell/Allied forces. The magnitude and frequency of
9 defendants efforts and the enlistment of Kyle Skillings VIOLENT AND PERJURIOUS assistance and
10 support directly reflects the severity of their RICO crimes and the depth of their guilt, not unlike Poes
The Tell Tale Heart. Defendants already KNOW what is buried here, on both properties, but
11
Remington doesnt YET know the worst. Obviously, said Mathsons continuous and perpetual
12
destructions are also comprehensive and complex estimated economic DAMAGES, which must be
13
added to an eventual, jury judgment, after the Renz term is determined.
14
15
16.. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE
16 523. Defendants 1998 and subsequent negligent conduct violated more than 50 State, County,
17 City and Federal statutes cited for the last 9-years, well-known to Gans and Plotz, et al, and are not all
18 repetitively repeated here. Some have been dropped as repetitive, extraneous and duplicative so here
19 only some of the more important independently violated ones are cited. If this Court accepts
20 jurisdiction here, there are another 30-40 considered in detail in DR080678 pre-trial hearings, to add
21
by FAC, especially the Negligence per se statutes, including the various previously cited California
Code violations in SJIs #67-76: 1714, 669, 13350, 1602, 25,189, 5411, 2510, 5650,
22
and many sub-sections associated therewith. Again, all relevant other paragraphs in all of these
23
present and cited to prior documents are included here by reference.
24
524. Mathsons above-described serious INTENTIONAL (and possibly partially negligent)
25
encroachments upon Remingtons adjacent property with hazardous asbestos, lead, gas station
26
remediated concentrated HC levels and sewage bacteria, etc was inherently dangerous and
27 unreasonable under the circumstances, violated Title III, A-167 discussed specifically below, which
28 automatically caused damages.
525. Defendants, including RAO, Skillings, Olson and all of them, have severely polluted and
contaminated plaintiffs property below30., and to the south of defendants permanent lived-in, wired
30 See ID, 2014 SJ opposition Appendices, III, per 2016 TRIAL; and also 2014 FAC: 156-174
or SS, ID, for best testing summaries, not required for THIS complaint, but useful for any new
175
1
and plumbed travel trailer and backyard over the course of many years This pollution directly violated
2
scores of Humboldt County, California, and Federal dumping, filling, water quality and pollution laws.
3
526. As a direct and obvious result of defendants placement of toxic materials directly onto
4
Remingtons land and the negligent failures to adhere to ANY one of at least 45 directly relevant
5
County grading directives for a mountain top illegal property grader with respect to his lower,
6 downhill neighbors, not unexpectedly, Wind and water have and are still causing continuing
7 migration and largely downward movement under water, wind and earthquake forces, both
8 above and below ground of Mathsons huge volume of encroaching fill. 550 to1000 cubic yards
9 have ALREADY migrated onto (John Aveggio, Deposition #2) Remingtons land, and more
10 moves lower in any significant rain. Aveggio used the word migration as a synonym for movement
and merely meant that when defendants placed and moved their 550 or more cubic yards onto
11
Remingtons land, no more movement or several inches of underground migration or leaching was
12
necessary to produce an illegal act, which relief here needs to come from these several causes of
13
action. In other words, as used by SHN, migration is not a meaningful scientific term, as Gans
14
apparently would trick us into believing, but merely a synonym for mega-movements, and not some
15
molecular movement in a laboratory test tube. In other words, further movement, sliding, migration,
16 leaching or downward forces of cohesive-adhesive or capillary action movement of additional
17 materials from Mathsons land onto or into Remingtons is unnecessary here, because defendants
18 already deposited more than 550 yards, of their very carefully and meticulously sorted worst toxins,
19 onto Remingtons land, because the Mathsons refused to keep those noxious and hazardous chemicals
20 and huge concrete, etc. blocks under their gardens.
21
527. As above, and below, defendants have illegally and without any permits at all
deceitfully, stealthily and clandestinely dumped hazardous contaminated substances, onto
22
plaintiffs property, infecting his springs, water supplies, Remington Creek and all his gardens
23
and the surrounding environment.
24
528. Defendants have also illegally expanded their septic system directly above the portion of
25
defendants landfill on Remingtons land without any permits, and despite being DENIED a permit
26
by the County. Said Mathsons permit was DENIED because their requested SECOND SEPTIC
27 SYSTEM was far-beyond the capacity of their land to perk, with the resultant pouring of improperly
28 treated sewage and other flushed poisons onto, into and beneath plaintiffs lower property during any
significant rain That frequent occurrence results in horrible foul odors, toxic oily, effluent, fecal and
soapy films, and other unknown poisons flowing onto Remingtons land.
defendants to see the overall BIG-PICTURE pattern, and to better understand the charges against
them which will NEVER be fully or honestly explained to them by Gans, certainly.
176
1
529. Mathsons construction of a large illegal, unpermitted septic system was dangerous,
2
unreasonable, in bad faith and foreseeably led to the infection of Remington and severe contamination
3
of Remingtons property below. That act was a serious violation of law and if it had been done by a
4
southern Humboldt County alternate lifestyle resident, perhaps with long here appeared, there could
5
easily have been bloodshed or a prison term involved here as punishment. But, as we have alleged, the
6 Mitchell firmProtects maths and the other defendants from any punishment under city, county or state
7 regulations, hence Remington had to seek federal guidance, authority and court supervision.
8 530. This pollution directly contaminates all plaintiffs waters North of the ravine and BEYOND
9 and Mathsons contaminated fecal bacterial outflows of ecoli and coliform have now been
10 smelled, observed, complained about and documented for many years, and finally infected
Remington in 2015, and also continued to pollute the Bay and environs. Thus, Mathsons landfill
11
and non-perking sewer systems impacts and impairs Remington Creek, and all in its entire
12
ecosystem below, which is already toxically impaired by ecoli, coliform, sediments, metals from
13
building materials, various lead paints, PAHs, aliphatics, many HCs, heavy metals, PCBs, ETC.
14
531. Defendants illicit dumping and filling, without any engineering, excavation permits,
15
Building Department inspections, supervision or proper responsible safeguards of any kind, (as
16 above)such as terracing, ditching, limited grades and flow velocities, proper subterranean perforated
17 piping and drains, or strong reinforced concrete waterproof retaining walls, violates without limitation,
18 the Humboldt County Building and filling codes, TITLE III, as cited, the other California laws cited
19 and the common law. Said violations are further subject to fines and removal by several different
20 actively investigating governmental bodies (with MORE presumably to follow), and makes them liable
21
for damages from the multiple adversely affected property owners below, including plaintiff.
532. Further in regards to TITLE III violations, defendants were clearly legally RECKLESS
22
and negligent here as follows:
23
(A) They used the WRONG machine for the job, which had no proper large object braking
24
control,
25
i.e. a third valve finger or fork, over any materials at the edge of the mountain top;
26
(B) They neglected to get a survey, because they just did not care and assumed all land on
27 their side of the ravine was permanently theirs and in effect squatted on and/or contaminated
28 about a half-acre of Remingtons most prime agricultural lands;
(C) They egregiously neglected to build any proper retaining wall or retention system for their debris;
(D) They got no engineering or proper terracing design for the side of a cliff;
(E) They did no terracing, thats legally required on that pitch of slope, in rainy, earthquake
country;
177
1
(F) They took no erosion control measures at all, as to required plantings, drainage piping,
2
diverting
3
and/or slowing heavy water flows safely, terracing, drainage ditching, etc; and
4
(G) Most seriously they refused to get a PERMIT, because what they planned to do was
5
CRIMINAL and not-permittable. A permit and County Building Department supervision would have
6 corrected ALL the above, and prevented material from trespassing on Remingtons land. But permits
7 are not available to criminals for say a bank robbery. What the environmental defendants have done
8 here is no less serious than a bank robbery which does not result in any violent deaths. Society also
9 frowns on ALL of defendants creative felonies here, also.
10 533. Mathsons huge unpermitted filling, excavations and landfill were inappropriate and
unlawful in this tranquil residential area, as first stated under oath by the late, great John Aveggio.
11
According to him, construction of a giant illegal landfill in our placid, sunny Cutten residential area
12
zoning is entirely UNKNOWN, inappropriate, unreasonable, unexpected, criminal and
13
INTOLERABLE.
14
534. California H & S Code 25189.2 (c) imposes strict liability on anyone who disposes of
15
hazardous material or waste at an unauthorized point. Mathsons residentially zoned backyard
16 was unauthorized as a Class I landfill and is a feloniously illegal actionable site.
17 Additionally, California H & S Code 25189.2 (b) imposes strict liability for violation of any
18 hazardous waste rules, standards or codes.
19 535. Defendants have violated F & G 5650, 5650.1, 5652 and 1602 by depositing,
20 dumping and storing petroleum, asphalt, asbestos and hazardous waste products above or near a
21
steam where said toxins could enter state waters, and here DO SO daily. Mathsons experts even
frivolously attribute ALL our extremely high diesel and motor oil testing values in soil and water (on
22
BOTH properties) to merely being asphalt particles masquerading as diesel, gasoline and motor oil
23
molecules, and even our chromatograms are false. Defendants disposals were cumulatively ultra-
24
hazardous.
25
536. Mathson violated F & G 5652 by disposing of numerous other kinds of hazardous wastes on
26
the banks of a creek. Those pollutants included asphalt products, asbestos, PAHs, PCBs and high
27 concentrations of many HCs within 150 of State waters, in such a position where they can and DO
28 readily enter said waters. Similarly, Mathson deposited dangerous, flammable gas, oil and diesel-soaked
soils on both properties, many of those deposited wastes gravitated naturally down onto Remingtons
land, and are here explained and complained about. Defendants depositing of heavily saturated diesel,
gasoline and motor oil gas station remedial soils on BOTH properties was abnormally dangerous,
incurring strict liability.
178
1
537. Defendants violated a series of other similar laws, such as Water 13387 (a) (1-7) wherein
2
they discharged, stored, buried and concealed said above pollutants and hazardous materials either INTO
3
or where they HAD TO enter California or Federal navigable waters, via Remington Creek which
4
connects to Humboldt Bay, numerous National Wildlife Preserves, Sanctuaries and wetlands.
5
538. Defendants recklessly pushed huge rounded, rollable objects to the edge of his mountain top
6 and over the edge onto Remingtons land, both accidentally& deliberately, which was abnormally
7 dangerous.
8 539. All factors involving the operation of HUGE loaders are inherently dangerous, 2015 SA SS.
9 540. Mathsons too rapid, high velocity run-off from the twin 6 pipes, makes entire mountainside
10 below it structurally unstable, and has already caused many serious damaging slides and erosion since
2008. The above activities cumulatively are abnormally dangerous to Remingtons health, land, and
11
the public. Therefore, between August and December 2011, Both SHNs Aveggio and Countys Hoyos
12
declared an imminent threat here (e.g., A-130, A-151-2), each was independent of the other and on
13
totally different data.
14
541. Defendants have been asked to cease or remediate ALL these above activities but rudely
15
ignored all of plaintiffs requests and in early 2008 defendants deliberately and clandestinely removed
16
plaintiffs successful water controlling mitigation attempts, resulting in said major slide damages.
17
542. Defendants violated the California Uniform Building Code 33, section 3307.1 in a
18
variety of ways including: No protections provided for adjacent property, no erosion control
19 measures, no terracing, no written notice ever provided to Remington advising him that this
20 huge excavation project was to be undertaken, which if ANY of those provisions had been
21 obeyed we would not have this problem today. Remingtons 2015 SA SS cites all violated codes,
22 sections and details, but here we can only state: Defendants violated: 331-14 D. PERMIT IS
23 REQUIRED for grading; Under 331-14, E. 1, ( 33, section 3307.1) No person shall do any
grading without first obtaining a grading permit from the building official, which covers
24
excavations and FILLS; GRADING STANDARDS of 331-14, H. 1. b. (1) & (2) [ID]
25
VIOLATED:NO ROCK OR SIMILAR IRREDUCIBLE MATERIAL WITH A MAXIMUM
26
DIMENSION GREATER THAN 12 SHALL BE BURIED OR PLACED IN FILLS; ALL
27
FILL SLOPE AND PREPARATION GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER H.
28
b. (1)-(5) were seriously VIOLATED; Mathson also violated 331-14, H. 2. regarding legal
SETBACKS, in MANY ways, per ad; Mathson violated 331-14, H. 3. (a.-e.) regarding
Drainage and terracing for slopes steeper than 33%. As to d. (1)-(2) above, Mathson violated
the fill depth of 10 as it is DEEPER than that in several places; Mathson violated 331-14, H.

179
1
4-5. regarding maintenance and inspections; Mathson violated 331-14, H. 6. c. (1) general
2
guidelines regarding Erosion & Sedimentation Control; Mathson violated 331-14, H. 6.
3
c. (2) (a) & (b) by not establishing required sediment basins, silt traps or similar, to retain sediment
4
on site and OUT of Remington Creek; Mathson violated 331-14, H. 6. c. (3) (a)-(b) by NOT:
5
minimizing slope impacts on sediment control by NOT benching, terracing or constructing
6 diversionary structures; Mathson violated 331-14, H. 6. c. (4) (a)-(d) by NOT protecting
7 watercourses and drainage inlets; Mathson violated 331-14, H. 6. c. (5) (d) by improperly
8 disposing of his excavated materials and illicit fill; Mathson violated 331-14, H. 6. c. (6) (a)
9 regarding DUST control; Mathson violated 331-14, H. 6. c. (7) by providing no revegetation
10 on Remingtons portion of landfill which remains denuded today; Mathson violated 331-14,
H. 6. d. (1) (a)-(d), by submitting NO erosion and sediment control plan; Mathson ALSO
11
violated 331-14, H. 6. d. (2) by not providing any required Implementation Measures
12
regarding erosion and sediment control; Defendants entire illegal filling project also violated
13
California Water Code 13350 (b) in that they ...permitted hazardous substances to be discharged
14
into State waters causing...pollution or nuisance; and Defendants violated California Government
15
Code 8670.675 by permitting ...oil to be discharged...into the environment..., ALL over their
16 property and now oozing and dissolving in subterranean waters to impact Remingtons lower
17 gardens in the region of the swamp. Cumulatively, Mathsons dumps lack of proper grading,
18 engineering, permits, run-off, erosion and grade controls and design, in combination with the
19 damaging flows from the twin 6 drain pipes, associated seepages and erosion has and is now
20 STILL causing continuing damages to Remingtons lower lands.
21
543. The total damages for all three (3) counts will be calculated by the time of trial, per Renz.
544. The same abatement costs and procedures will apply under any theories which the court and
22
jury accepts. The 2008 case trial complained of negligence counts and per se counts using the above
23
data and by the time of this trial may be collateral estoppel, until the 2016 trial is overturned on
24
appeal for numerous trial judge errors, beyond the scope here. Meanwhile, the above crimes and
25
errors were also actionable, recoverable trespasses.
26
27 545. SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: REMINGTON REQUESTS

28 ADJUDICATION OF THE FOLLOWING ELEVEN (11) OTHER RELATED PENDANT
STATE AND FEDERAL TORTS AND/OR CRIMES, UNDER SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION, 28 USC 1367:

180
1
546. FRAUDULENT INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS, CACI 1900, et seq,
2
which Remington reasonably relied on TO HIS HARM AND DETRIMENT. Without limitation,
3
six major categories are listed below from A-F:
4
547. Fabricated trial testimony. For 8 years Gans and Mathson disclosed all their witnesses in
5
our 3 different prosecuted lawsuits, who had any knowledge of the fill and whether Remington had
6 visited the fill project, made small talk with Mathson and the good ol local hangers-on gang,
7 plus any witnesses who could have possibly discovered the fill project or falsely claimed to have
8 seen Remington there(where the highly educated Remington purportedly said: I aint got no
9 problem with it) prior to 2006. For 8 solid years defendants had ONLY ONE such false witness:
10 Skillings. He claimed Remington was over there asking for fill in 1998 when all the evidence
which he SWORE was in place in 1998, provably was NOT THERE in even 2003 or until at least
11
2004.
12
548. Hence, Skillings was WRONG in his sworn testimony about meeting Remington in
13
1998 and it could not have been until at least 2004 or later, although Remington denies that it
14
ever occurred at any time. At the state trial Remingtons conclusive impeachment photos for
15
Skillings were barred by Judge Reinholtsen inferring severe bias and improper influences from his
16 previous law partners. After Remington had RELIED on ONLY dealing with Gans false testimony
17 from Skillings about discovery of the fill, Gans successfully suborned PERJURY in 4 OTHER
18 SURPRISE witnesses John Mathson, Joy Mathson, Joe Costa and Kishpaugh, who ALL suddenly
19 and for the FIRST TIME during opening statements of a jury trial ALL surprised Remington with
20 new and undisclosed crucial testimony, which was supposed to have been disclosed earlier but was
21
NOT, because it did not even exist earlier. Now Gans has 5 witnesses to try and keep consistent
with each other and Plaintiff doubts he and THEY can do it, and will certainly TEST that at every
22
forthcoming trial, DEPOSITION and written Federal discovery forum where we will quickly
23
generate some more predicate acts now by each and every perjurer. Gans is the mastermind of all
24
this deceitful criminality, like the mafia godfather, as fully set forth with particularity in RICO
25
Volume II.
26
549. Simply put, ALL of the above perjured testimony suborned by Gans and Plotz was
27 FALSE, and much of it, as represented above was reasonably relied upon by Remington and his
28 attorney Harvey Roberts. Gans, Mathson and ALL of them knew their lies were NOT TRUE when
made and when planned to be made, several weeks in advance.
550. As discussed fully in this section, Gans, Mathson, the RICO defendants and the others
named herein made knowingly false important, material representations to Remington which he
reasonably relied on, and that thereafter harmed him. All of the defendants knew their
181
1
representations were false when made, they intended that Remington, the court and jury would rely
2
on those false facts which they all did, harming Remington in that he lost the SOL trial, with
3
damages as expressed below, most of which are not fully calculable at this time. Also as expressed
4
below, Remingtons reasonable reliance was a major cause of that harm.
5
551. Obviously, the false prejudicial undisclosed testimony was kept secret for prejudicial
6 surprise at trial and falsely relying ONLY upon Skillings as to consent was deliberate and
7 intended to TRICK and deceive Remington. It worked, Remington was tricked, surprised and not
8 prepared with multiple depositions and plans as required, and as a result lost a major state battle
9 with potentially serious monetary results, caused by Gans deceit, witness testimony concealment
10 and misrepresentations about all his trial witnesses. Remingtons unfortunate reliance on Gans and
defendants representations in the above and in many other instances were a substantial factor in
11
causing Remingtons harm, and in most cases were the only factor.
12
552. As above, Remington is now counting on the fact that Gans enterprise defendants, near
13
defendants and associates will have to attempt to duplicate their state trial lies early-on in
14
federal discovery and then at all levels of and during the course of all federal motions, and then of
15
course at trial. If that occurs, Gans enterprise will generate another several hundred or more federal
16 predicate acts, plus numerous inconsistencies and conflicts with each others blatant perjurious lies,
17 NO DOUBT, where we now know what the lies are, what to watch for, and how to get there.
18 Remington in August 2016 had no idea that Gans was so desperate, utterly ruthless and stupidly
19 reckless to throw all ethics, truth and honest testimony out the window, and just wing-it with false
20 scripted facts, thinking that he could control the court and quickly blow Remington away forever.
21
553. That was a big mistake, because now Gans entire career, law license and freedom
from prison are all dependent on 5-6 itinerant lying witnesses that dont give a damn about
22
Gans personally, and will eventually slip-up, inevitably eventually make huge mistakes over the
23
years, and when that happens, they will instantly turn on Gans, go to the district attorney or
24
Remington and tell the truth to avoid prison themselves.
25
554. Remington does not need any additional lies here, just a repeating of the 10-20 old,
26
MAJOR, material lies and proving one or more of them are federal predicate acts, sufficient for one
27 witness to come forward and actually tell the truth to someone, sufficient to send most of them to
28 prison, in all likelihood. Because, as alleged above and in the RICO statement, thats the beauty of
RICO, you implicate one lower-level enterprise member, like Mickee Kishpaugh say, and then the
whole house of cards can suddenly fall into a pile, especially the top cards, Brisso, GANS, Plotz,
McBride and Lawrence, for starters, who here all wear needs in fancy coats and ties and
equally fancy business clothes in the case of the two likely to be implicated women.
182
1
555. Real quantity of improperly disposed of ASBESTOS. Mathsons experts saw,
2
counted, photographed and wrote about at least 23 asbestos pipes, Chrysotile samples and saw
3
several large ones still buried 10 in the ground but then at federal summary judgment swore there
4
was only ONE, which Ferriman swore maybe was not even asbestos, since they tested nothing
5
themselves! That sort of corruption is especially exasperating to debate about in motion documents
6 but will be fun to conclusively deal with at a trial.
7 556. Therefore, despite investigating the property on July 6, 2011 and counting 23 significant
8 asbestos pipes and fragments on Remingtons land alone, after Gans corrupt RICO plan was
9 enacted, all three (3) of Gans experts suddenly swore that there was probably No (ZERO) Asbestos
10 on the sites, but at the most, only one which probably wasnt even asbestos, and if it was probably
Remington put it there himself! Did that raise a reasonable doubt or what?
11
557. Thats typical Gans in action, absolutely brazenly false evidence, doctored, altered,
12
spoiled and removed evidence, false facts relating to all significant case issues, (especially volume
13
and toxicity in this example) and scripted perjured experts testimony. All of that is unlawful and
14
imprisonable for the massive violations committed by all defendants, cited in both volumes of this
15
federal case.
16 558. Here, Remington and his experts initially reasonably relied upon Ferrimans and Gans
17 honesty and that: (1) They would truthfully testify to what they saw in his presence so Remington
18 did not need to get Aveggio to swear to specific facts which were known to be seen and were
19 irrefutable and stipulated to on July 6, 2011; (2) Instead Ferriman, Gans, et al testified FALSELY at
20 Federal Summary Judgment and subsequently, about what we all KNOW they saw and thought on
21
July 6, 2011; (3) Defendants intended that Remington would reasonably rely on their veracity and
known neutral observations, so as not to call-in his own independent experts to testify and verify
22
what defendants had seen, and as a result Plaintiff was harmed by not having specific independent
23
experts, like Aveggio, McEdwards, Foget, Bruckner or Hoyos signing affidavits of what asbestos
24
was there on site because Ferriman, et al was going to LIE about everything; (4) Partly as a result of
25
the above misrepresentations by Gans, Schwartz and Ferriman Plaintiff lost a federal SJ in 2011,
26
which became very costly and prejudicial due to Collateral Estoppel (CE).
27 559. Defendants twin 6 pipes fraud. Defendants experts also falsely swore that Mathsons
28 twin 6 drain pipes were perforated, and the perfect test case for proving their fill was pristine
and uncontaminated. If water running through their fill came out PURE, then said fill must also be
pure. This was yet another example of Gans deceit, dishonesty and the creation of false evidence
and then coaxing his experts to swear that it was accurate. Again, this is analogous to all of the

183
1
examples in this section. Although thoroughly covered above, it is important enough to summarize
2
again here.
3
560. Gans and all of their environmental experts swore that said twin 6 inch pipes were
4
perforated and captured percolating water down through 10-15 feet deep of filling materials.
5
However said 6 pipes are actually solid from end-to-end, we eventually learned, discovered and
6 verified visually and from a 1998 cut-off end of EACH, about two years later after relying on their
7 experts veracity for over two years. That is a crucial material issue perhaps more important than any
8 other single issue in these cases. Until this court or other reader understands the significance of that
9 issue, this section should be reread as well as extensive prior sections above, in the general area of
10 pages 135.
561. IF the pipes are solid then they did not drain the fill or prove anything about the fill
11
except that it was so toxic defendants had to run two large solid pipes through it to PROTECT it
12
from water and exposure from water flowing through it and dissolving the hydrocarbons, etc. As
13
presented by Gans RICO enterprise experts, this issue was a perfect test case for serious
14
fraudulent deception of the courts and a similar attempt on Remington and his experts, which
15
initially succeeded but ultimately failed.
16 562. WHILE we were reasonably relying on Ferriman, Gwinn and Mathsons sworn statements
17 on such a simple basic material case issue, Discovery closed, so it was then TOO late to formally
18 investigate the pipes with our experts and test the drinking water coming out of them for ourselves
19 and hence to discover the scientific TRUTH because discovery had closed, and no judge would
20 reopen it, despite our pleadings.
21
563. All of the elements of intentional fraudulent misrepresentation were satisfied by virtue of
the above plus the following summary points:
22
(A) It is FALSE that the pipes are perforated, they are solid and that is important in the
23
context of Ferrimans perfect test case for the fill being pristine, which issue is beyond the scope
24
here;
25
(B) Ferriman, Gans, Mathson and defendants represented to plaintiff that that false fact was
26
TRUE;
27 (C) All of the defendants knew the pipes were solid and hence LIED about them to try and
28 win their case on this important point by CHEATING and misrepresenting, hoping to gain our
reliance which they did;
(D) We DID reasonably rely on defendants false testimony for years and Plaintiff was
HARMED in losing a SJ on this salient point plus spending considerable time and money defending
against and rebutting that point in at least 10 other major motion Oppositions;
184
1
(E) Defendants false pipe perforations testimony and the significance of same was
2
responsible for considerable damage to Plaintiff, especially after Aveggio died and therefore he
3
could not explain it all clearly to various judges, and the specific form which was often necessary.
4
When Remington paraphrased him or cited long specific passages of his 200-pages of sworn
5
declarations and depositions, Judge Reinholtsen was never very interested, for whatever the REAL
6 reasons, while Remingtons opponent was the judges very long time former law partners.
7 564. Now, since Remingtons primary expert (Aveggio) is dead and his opportunity to study
8 the pipes is past, several judges remain confused on the issue with no expert currently swearing to
9 the TRUTH, except Remington whose expertise has not been yet confirmed by any Court here in
10 this case, however Remington is also an expert so will be accepted as one after his qualification
hearing. Aveggios testimony is now somewhat prejudiced and never can be rendered entirely
11
accurate as to said twin pipes, since the issue did not become of crucial importance while he was still
12
alive, and now it requires another $1-2000 dollar expenditure to get a new expert familiar with the
13
issue. We have such an expert, Dr. McEdwards, however we have not yet had time to fully involve
14
him in all aspects of these cases, but can do so in a few days at any time. With no legitimate
15
discovery investigatory period now open, we would have to hop the fence and quickly dig out the
16 ends of the pipe switch could be easily done, but those acts would be illegal and also recorded on
17 mass and surveillance equipment, so now we must wait for a discovery order in this case, or
18 alternatively and DR140426, which Remington intends to simultaneously move forward during April
19 2017.
20 565. ALL defendants scientific testing was proved incompetent. John Aveggio studied,
21
testified and revealed only 5 days before discovery closed on July 6, 2011 that ALL of Blue Rock
Environmentals extensive scientific hydrocarbons and toxic metals tests were fatally flawed by
22
being unacceptably OUT-OF-HOLDING-TIME, meaning the samples had expired and had lost
23
their scientific potency about 6 weeks earlier, and therefore tested MUCH more benign than they
24
really were. We had relied upon all those tests for 2-3 years at that point and were severely
25
prejudiced by their convincing fraudulent, material scientific misrepresentation. All of our testing
26
and testimony was affected by that misrepresentation and can now never be fully remedied since
27 our primary expert is dead now, and can never modify his testimony to fit the actual known facts
28 today.
566. Again, all elements of intentional fraudulent misrepresentation are met with respect to this
issue is explained in the following five points:
(A) Plaintiffs expert and Remington BELIEVED defendants expert Blue Rocks false
scientific testing results representations;
185
1
(B) Blue Rock knew their results were fraudulent, bogus and unreliable when made to us and
2
all courts but did it deceitfully anyway;
3
(C) Blue Rock intended that Plaintiff, the courts and especially the Eureka environmental
4
administrators, e.g. The County Health Department, et al, would Fully believe and reasonably rely
5
on their results and ALL did;
6 (D) We especially, John Aveggio in particular, DID reasonably rely on defendants experts
7 representation and integrity, and by the time we proved otherwise and Aveggio testified as such,
8 discovery had closed and we could no longer prove anything with additional scientific testing;
9 (E) Plaintiff was harmed by that reliance and could have done more testing of all types and
10 established the true facts, and presumably would have WON the case by now, had the truth been
known timely by Aveggio before his declarations, depositions and death; The magnitude of this and
11
all of these reasonable reliances were significant and damages are considerable according to proofs,
12
when ALL are added-up. THEREFORE, a similar analysis applies to the VOLUME and
13
TOXICITY understatements below, and will be presented to a jury as ONE large, complex and
14
very important deceitfully damaging issue.
15
567. Defendants grossly understate the QUANTITY of encroaching fill, since 2011 and
16 increasingly so as every year passes, and John Mathson superficially but visually alters the
17 evidence.
18 568. All defendants experts, including Ferriman and Pulley and primarily GWINN have also
19 entirely, fraudulently and knowingly misrepresented the QUANTITY of encroaching toxic material
20 by deliberately miscalculating the material fact of fill VOLUME. That was done by intentionally
21
using false depth numbers and all parameters, which were obviously and knowingly wrong, grossly
false and they KNEW that or should have known it if they are in fact experts, as they represent.
22
Several hundred hours have been wasted by Plaintiff proving that defendants fraudulent estimates
23
are in fact TOTALLY wrong, HOW and WHY they are wrong and by HOW much. At all trials
24
we will prove Gwinn was VERY wrong and had to have deliberately understated the volume by a
25
factor of at least 7 and probably by 15! Such an error could NOT have been in good faith. What
26
that means here is that Gwinn committed a deliberate, serious and material fraud in his false
27 calculations intended to deceive the trier of fact and if he persists with that false evidence, we will
28 attempt to send them to prison on federal RICO perjury, fraud and related charges, as fully
explained in the RICO statement. As needed, the same element by element analysis above can be
applied to this and ALL the complaints cited here in Cause of Action XIII-#1.
569. Defendants falsely swore at the August 2016 SOL trial that the fill was all just clean,
benign uncontaminated dirt, and ignored the hydrocarbons, lead, coliform and asbestos,
186
1
ETC. Mathson and his witnesses also falsely swore at said trial that the fill materials were totally
2
benign, good clean redwood forest soils, and therefore devoid of any toxins or adverse materials.
3
570. That was a major, surprising departure from and a full reversal of their previous testimony
4
as we had previously around 2011come to rely on some semblance of veracity from Mathson, Gans,
5
Kishpaugh, Brisso, and even Plotz, and Ferriman to some extent, but at the 2016 trial we got
6 nothing honest and only more self-serving misrepresentations from them on all subjects.
7 571. When Judge Reinholtsen REVERSED his 5-year long repeatedly asserted position of
8 DENYING collateral estoppel in 2016 and decided there was NOTHING toxic in the dump
9 anywhere including asbestos, all Mathsons witnesses immediately supported that as though it truly
10 reflected what was actually on the ground. LYING and misrepresenting to a jury about what is
REAL and TRUE can hardly be a valid part of CE and this Court needs to square REALITY with
11
the law, CE and the public welfare exceptions to get this case back on the tracks logically, factually
12
and legally. The law cannot operate if its results are illogical, and lead to impossible results which
13
are ABSURDLY different from the established scientific realities fully proven for more than 10
14
years in these cases!
15
572. If the Zeka virus was found to be CE by some rogue, hyper-technical judge, ignoring
16 all public interest exceptions and motives, does that mean that all subsequent efforts to fight it are
17 ILLEGAL and that we all just have to succumb to it, die and suffer massive, fatal birth defects in
18 every subsequent birth in this country until the people overturn the justice system, or can the justice
19 system somehow ADAPT to reality, logic, common sense and what makes SENSE in the public
20 interest?
21
573. We RELIED upon Ferrimans Statements of Facts for several years, CACI 1904.
A. As provided in the examples above, defendants environmental expert Ferriman swore that
22
the twin pipes were perforated and hence the perfect test case to prove all the fill was pristine;
23
he swore and represented that all his tests were valid, competent and correct; and he also certified in
24
the 2009 federal case that he could also easily remediate Remingtons property for only $10,000,
25
working off-of Mathsons backyard, ETC.
26
B. Ferriman claimed to have special knowledge about all of the above material issues since
27 he was a self-styled EXPERT in testing, sampling and remediation, he said, and which Gans
28 corruptly corroborated, very deceptively and falsely promoted. Therefore, we had to give him some
credence, especially as to the twin pipes water tests and the soil tests he personally bored and
supervised. But, we were WRONG. Our confidence in him was grossly misplaced;
C. Ferrimans (and Gwinns) 143-page report was formatted and tabled in such a way as to
appear irrefutable, unreadable and inscrutable, and what it said appeared and was inferred to be
187
1
absolutely accurate. It looked like it was almost certain to be correct and because it was backed-
2
by Ferrimans word and reputation we never had any doubts about it until July 1, 2011 when
3
Aveggio had enough reservations on his own volition to study their chains of custody (also on his
4
own time so-to-speak) before his second deposition, and opened Pandoras box regarding Gans
5
corrupt defense, in effect. In any case, his special tests, investigations and boring logs, etc DID give
6 him special knowledge which we did not and COULD NOT have, however it turned-out to be all
7 incompetent, fabricated, self-serving, deceptive and fraudulent non-science to satisfy Gans false
8 narratives, that Remington was the root of ALL problems in this watershed. Gans and Ferrimans
9 intentionally and knowingly false scientific tests were intended to deceive Remington and his
10 experts plus all relevant courts, and Gans brilliantly succeeded in doing all of those things.
D. Ferriman held himself out as having special knowledge, expertise and skills and that his
11
2010 Blue Rock environmental report held FACTS not just biased and fraudulent data, under the
12
guise of scientific facts tampered with valid and honest expert opinions.
13
574. In the 2010-11 context, and with the more ethical advocacy of Gans, before he turned
14
totally BAD and went RICO fully in about 2012, we were reasonably and intellectually justified
15
in relying on BOTH his claimed FACTS and expert opinions, however BOTH now have been
16 proven suspect, wrong, fraudulent and overall MOSTLY FALSE. Probably deliberately false to
17 satisfy Gans false narrative where defendants are blameless here. Ferriman now is like a whore,
18 selling himself to the highest bidder for a few hours of sexual fun, when Gans can use him to say
19 anything he needs to a jury without recourse they think. As alleged elsewhere, Ferrimans 2010
20 143-page report was entirely incompetent because all of the laboratory tests they had done at
21
dishonest labs down south, were done far-out of holding time, at least six weeks out, such that
the results were all entirely incompetent and grossly understated, due to almost complete
22
volatization of the hydrocarbon soil and water samples.
23
575. Aveggio probably had a trusting and confidential professional-type relationship with
24
Ferriman, and Remington had various special reasons to expect Ferriman would be honest and
25
reliable. Ferriman was personable, deceptively appeared to be conscientious and to have more
26
integrity than anyone else in Gans enterprise, which led to his successful deceptions. He duped us
27 and would have tricked a jury early on before we were on to him as we are now. We originally
28 trusted him as the default position with any expert with a clean reputation, apparently working
successfully in the industry, which reputation is ruined now, and his boss with the credentials of Mr.
Gwinn, even more so.
576. We lost confidence in Ferriman on MANY other grounds also since 2011, for example his
inability to count the asbestos pipes higher than maybe one is significant. He personally
188
1
handledAnd examine very close-up at least 10 different asbestos pipes, up to 500# in Remingtons
2
presence and photographed at least that many, yet still says there was a single asbestos pipe, if
3
any! Also his expert opinion that the rainbow oil sheens in the swamp area were merely decaying
4
organic redwood materials was SOUNDLY refuted AFTER his last visit there in on July 6, 2011, by
5
SHN and the County. BOTH set of tests proved there were high diesel and motor oil-derivative
6 molecular weighted hydrocarbons deposited and seeping into that area from Mathsons hillside and
7 hilltop dump.
8 577. Cumulatively, and as set forth below and especially in the RICO complaint, Volume II,
9 defendants, and all those named in both parts of the complaint, committed numerous counts against
10 Remington, including civil conspiracy is alleged above and below, acts of racketeering giving rise
to numerous violations of RICO as alleged, numerous other types of fraud, deceit, deception,
11
extortion and oppression as explained, plus tortious interference with contract (see below),
12
destruction of business property, trespass and unjust enrichment, to name some of them. As alleged
13
in the RICO statement ( fully incorporated here by reference), Gans Enterprises basic purpose
14
was to extort, damage, steal from and avoid paying Remington justly due funds for remediation,
15
plus his costs and then to further damage him emotionally and also harm his business
16 economically.
17 578. As alleged throughout these documents, most of these acts were done as a civil
18 conspiracy and involved torts which damaged Remingtons business and property, continue on
19 almost a daily basis today in spring 2017, and further threaten same now, and into the future as long
20 as these cases are outstanding.
21
A. As a result of the above torts and conspiracies, defendants have engaged in the malicious,
willful and fraudulent commission of wrongful acts as set forth in detailBelow, and because of the
22
reprehensible and outrageous nature of those acts, Remington is entitled to, and should be awarded,
23
punitive damages against each of the defendants individually, according to proven individual
24
culpability and related proofs.
25
26
579. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, CACI 1901.
27 Organized conspiratorial collusion. Defendants, and ALL of their, basic crimes were illegal,
28 a local form of Northcoast trucking company organized crime, based upon the hauling of highly
illicit and DANGEROUS substances, dumping sorting-out the gigantic chunks and then grading the
rest of them relatively smooth and flat. As explained, the environmental defendants criminal
project involved, without limitation: Sorting all of the WORST visually identifiable toxins and
placing them on Remingtons land, then BURYING them there under dirt, gravel and more
189
1
benign debris, and than finally TOTALLY CONCEALING THEM 100% ONE IMPORTANT
2
STEP FURTHER with large redwood stumps, logs, heavy branches (up to 500 pounds each) and
3
then finished with very aggressive Northcoast ground covers, from blackberries to Ivy all
4
fertilized and hand-watered by both Mathsons for near instant concealment of the ground and
5
anything slightly protruding from it. All of the above and below allegations, plus those from RICO
6 Volume II are hereby incorporated herein, as if fully set forth on this page.
7 580. Specific allegations, and individual counts of fraudulent concealment, generally:
8 A. The purpose and macro details of defendants ENTIRE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
9 has been concealed, kept SECRET and cleverly disguised as an innocent, benign backyard
10 landscaping project, when in reality it has always been since its inception a major industrial
-sized contaminated for-profit class I hazardous waste dump, with profits several millions of
11
dollars require further detail discovery.
12
580B. Defendants have falsely revealed for years, from 2006 through summer 2016 that they
13
HAULED and DISPOSED of benign clean dirt fill materials on their land which spilled over onto
14
Remingtons, supposedly by accident, innocently, in good faith, without criminal motivation or
15
without damages from toxic materials. In that narrative they failed to disclose several CRUCIAL,
16 criminally incriminating important facts and prevented Remington from discovering same by their
17 clever, calculated and COMPLETE BURIAL of their hazardous debris under more innocuous
18 materials. Said important facts were: (1) that MOST of the material was highly toxic asbestos,
19 Chrysotile, saturated hydrocarbon gas station remediated soils, plus the NUMEROUS other toxic
20 substances named; (2) the WORST most obtrusive and toxic materials were sorted and intentionally
21
PLACED specifically onto Remingtons land, or across the boundary line defendants were aware of
to within several feet, and (3) All the contaminated and polluted debris was then BURIED under dirt,
22
redwood needles and gravel and then planted over with fertilized and watered grasses, weeds growing
23
in between piled redwood branches and slash, TOTALLY concealing the crimes for many years.
24
THOSE important facts were entirely and actively concealed and absolutely PREVENTED
25
Remington from discovering any of those facts until his January 2006 excavations, 12-20 deep
26
beneath the concealing organic debris. In other words over various time frames, defendants actively
27 concealed by burial the criminal fact that they had established a hazardous waste dump on
28 Remingtons land, and further disguised it by piling organic debris many feet high on the surface of
said dump, making discovery impossible until many tons of debris were burned and paths were built
into that steep, impassable terrain. MOST of photos provided show some of that concealment;
580C. Remington did not know of any of the above concealed facts until January 2006, after
burning many tons of the concealing debris and excavating 6-20 inches deep all over the dumpsite,
190
1
and then STILL did not learn the extent of the toxicity or the massive volume of the fill until
2
numerous further tests and consultants had confirmed the toxic crimes that defendants had
3
perpetrated upon Remingtons land. As fully set-forth in hundreds of pages of declarations and 2016
4
trial and pretrial testimony transcripts, Remington had no way of discovering defendants totally
5
unexpected encroaching toxins until he actually needed, developed and then very extensively and-
6 excavated that area many months, as then and still, that entire dump area is inaccessible to
7 backhoes or larger machinery needed to dig-in and move concrete chunks and redwood stumps
8 weighing up to 25,000 pounds protecting the dump from disclosure. As complained above,
9 defendants apparently convincing, well-coached, well-sold by Gans, perjured testimony at the
10 2016 SOL trial was accepted by a naive and duped jury, however that does not make it true and in
fact it is false. The jurys verdict is not inviolable and here where it was gained by corruption,
11
deception and perjury, Remington expects to overturn it and will continue these cases until that is
12
accomplished;
13
580D. Defendants Mathson and RAO intended to deceive and to fully trick Remington by
14
concealing the above facts and cleverly, corruptly and unlawfully succeeded, totally for many years,
15
as explained;
16 580E. Remington was entirely unaware of any defendants or Mathsons projects,
17 encroachments onto his land or into his redwood forests and was TRICKED, and totally prevented
18 from seeing or discovering defendants contaminated waste on, by the benign debris and weeds
19 covering their crimes, which concealment is perhaps the most important part of the cover-up, aside
20 from the inaccessibility and inaccessibility of accessing the area until 2006 and thereafter, as per the
21
SOL pre-trial evidence. Of course their deceit, gross understatement of all the known scientific
expertly discovered facts, and their determined lying about and overall cover-up of the whole
22
situation today, also is important;
23
580F. Being entirely unaware of any issues, crimes, criminal conspiracy or enmity against him
24
by the JEALOUS Mathsons and/or negligent, criminal RAO employees, Remington reasonably
25
relied upon Mathsons, Gans and their experts false representations and pretenses of the Mathsons
26
being a solid, normal, law-abiding neighbor who was apparently, and pretended to be sympathetic
27 towards Remingtons mid-2000s security problems with deer, bear, vandals and BURL and
28 machinery THIEVES;
580G. As a result, Remington was severely harmed as below, under Relief Requested;
580H. The environmental Defendants, including Randall and Kishpaugh, especially, as well as
the City (their Public Works Director, and/or associated employees that contracted with RAO, in
and around 1998) were responsible for the above described torts and crimes, and the concealment
191
1
of the hazardous toxins described was arguably the ONLY factor in the harm described in this cause
2
of action, other than the original crimes themselves, which if SEEN or otherwise known
3
contemporaneously could have been prevented when the first wanton truck load rolled-down the
4
mountain, onto Remingtons land. Unfortunately, all of defendants numerous dump-truck loads of
5
hazardous wastes pushed or directly dumped onto Remingtons land, were entirely unnoticed by
6 Remington or any of this neighborhood confidants, for about 8 years.
7 580I. Today, in fall 2016, Defendants continue with their miscellaneous concealment activities
8 including evidence removal, cursory superficial, surface site clean-up and related criminal,
9 perjurious litigation activities, intended to break Remingtons resolve, increase expert and time
10 costs and DELAY these cases endlessly until the parties die (preferably Remington who is by far
the OLDEST party and participant involved here) or run-out of energy and resources.
11
581. Concealment of defendants knowledge of the encroaching fills VOLUME and
12
TOXICITY. Defendants have continuously materially understated all parameters and qualities of the fill
13
and then falsely SWORN to those gross, material inaccuracies,As described in the following seven (7)
14
paragraphs 581 (A)-(G):
15
581A. They misstate its known proven TOXICITY, the size and illegality of its huge toxic
16 components, and its lateral extent and depth to reach a false minimalist VOLUME and thus a lesser
17 nuisance and damage factor. For example, the asbestos danger and menace is grossly understated by
18 a factor of about 98% and when serious hydrocarbon reservoirs and flumes are discovered seeping
19 below heir materials, sampled, tested and recorded below the dump, Gans just blames them on
20 Remingtons activity, from 200 yards away, far DOWN across a deep ravine, creek and then 50
21
back up another mountain, and clearly irrelevant even to Gans and his evil assistants, at the Mitchell
firm. He uses that argument, complete with perjuring witnesses to try and prejudice a jury and to
22
argue that defendants are innocent, and Remington has caused all contamination and deleterious
23
events in that area and watershed;
24
581B. Over many years, defendants have disclosed some facts about all this and deliberately,
25
deceitfully misstated and minimized all facts they have presented. The California case law is clear:
26
Once defendants decide to explain ANY of this and then the rule has long been settled in this state
27 that They must speak the TRUTH, as required to explain everything. Although one may be under no
28 duty to speak as to a matter, if he undertakes to do so, either voluntarily or in response to inquiries,
he is bound not only to state truly what he tells but also not to suppress or conceal any facts
within his knowledge which materially qualify those stated. If he speaks at all he must make a full
and fair disclosure.(Marketing West v. Sanyo, (1992) 6 Cal. 4th 603, 612-13, emphasis added).
HERE, Defendants, and all of them, DID speak very extensively, both individually in many sworn
192
1
and a few other statements, and through Gans(and Plotzs) written lies initially. The attorneys
2
wrote the scripts and masterminded corrupt responses in all forums, including their inaccurate and
3
perjured depositions, declarations, knowingly false and deceitful oppositions and later
4
clarifications, etc. Everything defendants and their experts have said and done all along was more
5
dishonest, inaccurate and prejudiced than not, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, and
6 therefore most of their fraudulent and deceptive enterprise oppositions have damaged plaintiff and
7 misdirected his experts and their work, resulting in, among other things: Much LESS testing done on
8 Remingtons land in anticipation of Gans promise testing; the wrong tests done for the same reason,
9 and many tests done TOO late for the earlier cases, again because of Gans reasonably relied
10 upon promises, representations and vehement demands to test all over Remingtons land, when in
fact we now know that he intended to not do a single test anywhere on Remingtons land.
11
581C. Defendants KNEW the true facts all along as to volume and toxicity and KEPT that
12
knowledge from Remington, Aveggio, the County and McEdwards and delayed our full discovery by
13
many years;
14
581D. Defendants intent was clearly to deceive Remington and his environmental experts,
15
break Plaintiffs resolve, force him to settle cheap, FAR BELOW THE KNOWN COSTS OF
16 REMOVAL OF DEFENDANTS TOXIC WASTES, or to just go away empty handed and leave the
17 hazardous materials to his grandkids, and future thirsty generations who eventually will NEED THAT
18 LAND AND WATER to drink and survive, during the next major drought;
19 581E. For years, Remington and his experts, especially Hoyos and Aveggio reasonably relied on
20 Gans corruptly planned and executed, massive 130-page Blue Rock report which appeared accurate,
21
professional and reasonable, but now has been proven to be a sham, FRAUD and deliberate attempt
to deceive ALL who relied on it, especially two COURTS, all of Remingtons experts in all cases,
22
plus most importantly Humboldt County and the California Water Boards. Gans successfully and
23
intentionally deceived all of the former and it is difficult today to determine which of the
24
aforementioned 4-5 interested parties in those tests would be the most important, financially or
25
otherwise;
26
581F. As a result of defendants fraudulent deceptions and plaintiffs experts reasonable reliance
27 on same, Remington was GREATLY damaged by delays and failure to timely do his own BETTER
28 testing especially in the Federal case. About 3 years of valuable time and work was lost federally
and still is being lost over bogus CE (collateral estoppel). The amount of damages is not calculable
today and depends upon upon many things, including without limitations: The granted rates of pay
for Remingtons various types of time expended on these activities, if in fact that is deemed to have

193
1
any litigatory value at all, and WHAT time periods are used under Renz for damages, which under
2
that influential California damages precedent would take damages through trial and all appeals, ETC;
3
581G. In any case, at a trial it will be made clear that after RAOs, Mathsons and the other
4
defendants initial criminal acts, the subsequent deceit and frauds, described above, were the
5
subsequent MAIN cause of Remingtons harm, from the contamination projects inception to the
6 present COVER-UP continuing today, and now indefinitely with about ten (10) participants on their
7 side now. As per the RICO statement, this entire matter took a much darker, more sinister,
8 potentially deadly and decidedly criminal turn when Gans, et al, could not win on the merits, after
9 wasting many years trying, and so had to turn to criminal cover-up activities, bribery, improper
10 influence, extortion, etc., which should eventually destroy all who illicitly support Gans and are
taking their criminal guidance from the Mitchell firms RICO leadership.
11
582. Defendants fraudulent CONCEALMENT of their serial vandalisms, trespasses and
12
the treble damages requested and recoverable from their destruction of fruitful timber.
13
Defendants, and all of them, especially Randall and John Mathson, have periodically,
14
consistently and persistently VANDALIZED Remingtons land in the many ways described below,
15
at the next trials and throughout the complaints and documents of the last 8 years, involving fence
16 vandalisms and treble damages trespass to Alder timber, Alder firewood and burl theft, littering and
17 disposal of personal garbage on Remingtons land without permission, and related trespass and
18 unauthorized breaking and entering torts;
19 583. EACH type of fraud, all of which are better and more fully described in the RICO
20 statement, can be analyzed briefly as above, further now, at demurrer or at trial, as follows:
21
A. Mathson, Kishpaugh, Skillings and Randall (and probably others presently unknown),
ALL repeatedly vandalized Remingtons land in different ways, with different damages each
22
episode. See Photo #53 for example of a vandalized fence, which has been repaired every 2 feet;
23
B. At the time Remington did not know of the vandalisms and related crimes, as criminals
24
are stealthy and secretive;
25
C. Obviously, these criminals intended to be secretive and to HIDE and conceal their crimes
26
(as to WHO masterminded the crime and damages) from Remington to avoid punishment;
27 D. Remington reasonably relied on the civility and words of each criminal in real time and
28 during the course of much of the criminal activity, as neither was seen or specifically CAUGHT on
video in any criminal acts, at least until very recently;
E. Remington and the Burl Tree were harmed by each individual violent and destructive
criminal act, especially as to the approximately 150+ (and increasing about two (2) per week this
month, 2-17) specifically identified, specifically described and/or usually photographed individual
194
1
criminal vandalisms by John Mathson, and his associated Westgate criminal substance-abusing
2
gang, alone, mostly felonies. Both Randall and Kishpaugh (and additionally Costa, Joy Mathson
3
Evans and Skillings) are believed and similarly inferred to have had LESS specific criminal
4
episodes than John Mathson, at this time. Obviously, that could completely change after extensive
5
written discovery, sworn depositions, and dozens of gigabytes of surveillance videos are reviewed,
6 covering each and every detail of these crimes, corroborated with the other enterprise members, and
7 pending the expected violent retaliatory acts against Remingtons life or health, while the RICO
8 enterprise flights for its survival during 2017. Randall in particular has caused and may still be
9 assisting said above Westgate gang with their present damages of similar, and possibly greater
10 magnitude than those known to have been caused by John Mathson between 2012-2017, since
Randall created adverse conditions which CAUSED a major, very costly, and potentially
11
catastrophic slide behind Remingtons massive structure. If said Randall-Figas extortion (See
12
RICO statement) slide continues above and EAST for another 30-feet, then Burl Tree damages and
13
the overall structural slope renovations and necessary pilings, etc. could be in the million dollar
14
range, if said mitigation attempts are started a day or two after it is too late to save the structure;
15
F. Said named defendants were the ONLY factors in the specific damages alleged hereunder
16 THIS portion of this cause of action.
17 584. Spoliation of evidence by Mathson and Randall has been complained of for years and
18 has resulted in a total alteration visually of the above-ground appearance of the dump, and also the
19 crucial region 30-50 west of Remingtons gigantic 50+ feet tall residential structure, not quite
20 finished yet. Defendants massive and continued evidence spoliation proves Remingtons
21
continuing contamination allegations the BEST, as NOTHING IN THE DUMP AREA TODAY IN
2016, matches anything in any 2006-8 photo. In other words, the entire defendants landfill area can
22
be seen in said photos to dramatically vary over time in every possibly significant way,
23
including visually, and volume and toxicity-wise. EVERYTHING at these dumpsites is very to
24
totally different over those years, as damages continue, movement of all materials continues in all
25
directions, and essentially ALL hazardous materials are migrating and rapidly moving further
26
DOWNHILL by gravity and natural forces, or UPHILL INTO MATHSONS GARBAGE CANS,
27 Photo #54, FOR STEALTHY AND ALSO UNLAWFUL REMOVAL, UNDER THE FEDERAL
28 LAWS CITED IN THE RICO STATEMENT, AND UNDER GANS FRAUDULENT PRETENSE
AND PRETEXT THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM HERE NOW, AND THERE NEVER WAS
ONE! Mathsons fallacy and the false pretenses upon which there criminal visual evidence removal
acts or predicated upon is that 99% of the hazardous debris was BURIED initially and still is now.
As alluded to in the RICO statement, Gans ordered broom-sweeping of a few dead termites and
195
1
rotten wood debris off the floor of an enormous solid wood structure with millions of pounds of
2
rotted wood already impacted for more than 20 years, throughout the ENTIRE structure with 1
3
trillion termites, does not solve or cure the problem. It may, and in Humboldt County almost
4
certainly will, trick and deceive a judge and jury into the fraud that there really is no problem
5
because you cant see it, and further if there ever was a problem (which they also deny) before, it
6 has NOW been fully resolved by defendants heroes, by merely removing one one millionths
7 (1/1,000,000) of the problem, all of the visual evidence, as though it never existed.
8 585. Likewise analogously, burying 10,000 unexploded radioactive landmines in a steep
9 playground next to a school yard is NOT safe disposal, and merely removing the ones on the
10 surface does not mean that running across the others or the weathers exposing others to the
surface will NOT be dangerous. In other words, the toxic hazardous threat remains especially where
11
the greatest toxicity is from submicroscopic asbestos fibers, invisible benzene and lead VAPORS,
12
other carcinogenic DUSTS and invisible ecoli and coliform-related bacterial colonies, which are
13
unaffected by Mathsons cosmetic evidence tampering and attempted understatement of the
14
problems and dangers.
15
586. Randalls physical defacement of, wanton unauthorized cutting, removal and subsequent
16 THEFT of the wood from Remingtons Alder trees South of the Creek, unrepaired surface damages
17 to the ground there which caused major erosion, and subsequent landslides in that area, where said
18 Alders were illicitly cut, destroyed and then stolen also caused damages as per the above analyses:
19 A. Mathson, Kishpaugh and Randall: concealed important evidence and concealed that from
20 Remington;
21
B. In those cases Remington did not know of the concealed facts for very different reasons in
each case, as per trial testimony or depositions;
22
C. All three above defendants intended to and succeeded in deceiving Remington as to their
23
intentions, future actions, motivations and their actual criminal, vandalistic or trespassory activities
24
and acts;
25
D. Remington trusted each during parts of the time frames involved and then never got
26
around to prosecuting or seriously addressing eithers crimes in real time, for various valid reasons;
27 E. Remington was harmed by defendants behavior as will be further explained in the detail
28 required for a CONVICTION of each for their transgressions, misdemeanors and/or conspiratorial,
collusive (with Gans) FELONIES in Mathsons case.
587. Present Collusion and conspiracy to provide anticipated false future trial testimony
in the contamination cases, including this case, among all of the active current environmental
defendants (excluding the City). As above, defendants criminal actions implicate them in collusive
196
1
criminal conspiracies which at a trial next time will involve the entire deceitful package of past and
2
present actions and statements, so see #1-4 above to support this count. As alleged throughout ALL
3
these 800+ pages, defendants, and all of them, in or out of the RICO enterprise engaged in
4
documented acts exhibiting MALICE, CLEAR DELIBERATE, CALCULATED INTENT,
5
DECEPTION AND GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF ILLEGALITY, although no defendants
6 cared about the later obviously and the malice was built-into Mathson and Skillings
7 psychopathic personalities and radiated out to Gans and the others, alleged to be leading and
8 soldiering within the now active RICO racketeering enterprises cover-up, since 2011-2012.
9 588. As complained previously and generally, Gans and his evil, presently equally
10 UNETHICAL APPRENTICE PLOTZ, (presumably with the cooperation and corrupt

collusion with McBride, Brisso and Kloeppel as alleged in the RICO statement) have suborned
11
perjury in 2016 through-out 2016 pretrial proceedings and beyond, and got away with it, so
12
far. Plotz is constantly by Gans side at every hearing and all day, every day at the Mitchell firm. He
13
may argue that he was stupid, duped and did not understand how wrong and criminal ALL his
14
activities have been for the last several years. But, Plotz is definitely not stupid and naive. Probably
15
he didnt know how deep he was getting into a criminal conspiracy when he joined the Mitchell firm
16 in 2014; but, being younger, sharper, quicker and of approximately the same average intelligence of
17 Gans, PLOTZ is absolutely aware of all of Gans corruption and criminal activity and is inferred to be
18 Gans master strategist and the executor in writing of every criminal thought that pops into Gans
19 head. When the FBI begins their investigation, Plotz will undoubtably try to plead insanity and
20 that he had no idea what Gans was up to for all these years, however, his three years of detailed
21
writing in these cases belies that fact, KILLS that excuse, because obviously he DID KNOW, as well
as should have known, and his best prospects now or to start telling the truth and attempt to get a
22
lighter sentence for himself. Did Hitlers secretary, special assistance and/or show for or telephone
23
operators know about a multi-year plan to exterminate Jews and all other minorities in Europe?
24
Remington would argue yes. SEE more sophisticated analysis in RICO Statement about these
25
analogues and analogies.. Strangely, defendants witnesses serial, multiple and egregious 2016 SOL
26
trials perjury is not directly actionable here YET, under the protection of the litigation privilege.
27 Under that protective doctrine written by and for probably largely (but not all) corrupt attorneys, it
28 might chill defendants future behavior and their abilities to continue their false testimony in the
future. Remington will just have to deal with all of that better in real time, NEXT time, and at their
next depositions, with ALL concerned. Defendants perjury did occur repetitively and continuously
throughout 2016, including obvious perjury in the 2016 SOL trial and is further anticipated in the
NEXT state trials, where essentially Defendants essential defense is that Remington caused all
197
1
damages to BOTH properties, which is rather easily refuted with a jury which is had high school or
2
above science courses.
3
589. Therefore, for the reasons explained in the previous paragraph, pure perjury is
4
NOT presently actionable as such in California, so THIS fraud count cannot be and IS NOT
5
based on any trial testimony. However, defendants lies HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY NOTED,
6 and will be used extensively and exhaustively in our next pretrial depositions, which clearly we
7 would be prudent to conduct this time, and then as fully explained in the RICO statement, when
8 they are inevitably, as they now must, be repeated in the federal case, said extensive collusive and
9 serial perjury will be used beneficially there. Next time Remington will just more clearly contrast
10 defendants major deposition and trial inconsistencies, using omission cross-examination

techniques, but where contamination is a photographic VISUAL FACT, a few more collusive,
11
suborned perjury trial lies will not save Mathson, et al next time. Not easy, but Remington has the
12
time, and the will to do so, derived from the anger which Gans engendered with his extreme
13
violations of truth, justice and fair play in August 2016. If Remington ultimately loses these
14
litigations its gonna be in a fair fight and not from some blatant trickery, lies and eventually just
15
getting knifed in the back. As a sportsman, Remington occasionally loses an athletic contest but
16 never due to fraud, cheating and violation of all rules unless its in a contest with a 5-10 year-old
17 child. Next time, Remington will KNOW to start and almost finish the trial from his first steps to
18 the Voir Dire podium, and will not let Gans deceit, trickery and false logic get away with all that
19 initial, case determining discussion about his witness preparation and is gaining one-by-one
20 clearly granted and/or implied permissions from each and every juror to condone HIS extensive,
21
totally corrupt and illegal witness tampering and coaching of the worst magnitude, which when
repeated in a federal court, are all imprisonable federal predicate acts of witness tampering, bribery,
22
fraud and obstruction of justice, etc.
23
590. Mathson, Gans, et al, attempt to blame everything contaminated in this community on
24
Remington, but contamination of Mathsons DUMP AREA by Remington (as Gans alleges),
25
would be technically, logically and scientifically impossible without any machine access to the 3-
26
5 MILLIONS of pounds of toxic, hazardous and adverse substances now on Mathsons land alone,
27 but more importantly said non-native substances, and a lesser amount, are STILL also on
28 Remingtons land, which is ALL this suit is about, aside from the FRAUDS above and related
damages below. At trial, one might ask with no machine access and with Mathson living on these
properties 10-20 years before Remington, how did Remington deposit 3 million pounds of
hazardous debris into Mathsons backyard as Mr. Gans now accuses, and where did Remington get
all of that hazardous debris in the first place? At one time, Remington had a 40-foot flatbed trailer
198
1
had a semi-and dump trailer but all of those were sold many years before defendants 1998
2
trespasses with hazardous materials. Without even a single 10-30 yard dump truck the
3
contamination caused by defendants would be impossible, as it required many, many very large
4
dump trucks to haul that massive amount of hazardous debris to these residential landfills. These
5
kinds of absurd and illogical conclusions are the logical result of pursuing any and all of Gans
6 corrupt, false premise logic, slanderous, fraudulent and impossible defensive allegations, devices
7 and schemes. Now that Remington understands how Gans conducts a trial with non-stop perjury
8 and corruption, he will be ready next time, especially with a big city juror pool that Remington can
9 relate to much better than in this small town setting.
10 591. Despite scientific impossibility, the named defendants plus their environmental experts
are all prepared and coached to LIE in any way deemed useful to Gans constantly varying defense,
11
and well clearly be on the alert for the worst lies, deceptions and incredible almost unimaginable
12
distortions, mischaracterizations and material falsifications next time, and respond with a calm
13
rebuttal, or use an attorney to do so if needed. Now that we expect the unexpected and understand
14
that there will absolutely be a constant barrage of lies or worse, we will therefore be forced to take
15
the pre-trial document disclosures, detailed written interrogatories, admissions and depositions
16 DEADLY SERIOUSLY from now on, which is Remingtons best hope at this point,!
17 592. OTHER concealment activities have been fully documented for 8 long years. Some
18 overlap with complaints below, addressed under CCP 128.6 allegations, which involve at least 30
19 overlapping unethical, sanctionable complaints, itemized previously, elsewhere at RICO statement:
20 532-553, or higher, below, and attributable to Mathson, his gang members, others named herein but all
21
managed, supervised and directed through Gans and his RICO inner circle, as per A-E below:
A. If a fact is Really important, Gans has either refused to disclose it, or just intentionally
22
decided not to disclose it, SUCH as the surprise, totally false, recently fabricated and hence never
23
revealed as required in 2011 special interrogatories, testimony about Remingtons multiple visits to
24
the dump site in 1998, supposedly to give it his blessings and to praise their brilliant work and
25
magnificent criminal project. Unfortunately, Remington had much bigger and better things to do in
26
1998 then screw-around with the Mathsons doing some little dirt project which he was not aware
27 of it all. Remington is certainly paying the price for that 1998 busyness and indifference, but thats
28 just the way it was then, and the true honest facts are making it difficult to present a case when most
or all truth is negated by believable multiple perjuries. Those 1998 truths, plus all the previous
2012-15 CCP 128.6 material from state and federal actions is relevant here and most of Gans
trial witnesses were at least partially actively concealed from Remington, and all of their anticipated

199
1
fabricated, false and otherwise devised testimony was concealed in order to confuse and conceal
2
crucially disclosable material from Aveggio, the County and plaintiff, at which they succeeded;
3
B. All material trial evidence was concealed by Gans, whether twin pipes, planned
4
orchestrated, rehearsed and much too consistent false testimony by multiple witnesses or lies about
5
meeting and conferring in August 2011, ETC. All of Gans false and incompetent testimony was
6 fully designed and intended to deceive plaintiff, the regulatory agencies, all Case experts, all jurors
7 and all courts involved in adjudicating these cases;
8 C. As alleged above, Remington reasonably relied upon Gans and Ferrimans professionalism,
9 integrity and basic civilized veracity up through the 2011 proceedings, but was betrayed in numerous
10 cases, as documented in the 2014-15, CCP 128.7 motion documents involving at least 40 different
issues, some of which are again re-outlined in RICO statement pages 532-553 cited above;
11
D. Remington was HARMED financially in each instance as proved at a trial, ethics hearing
12
or similar OR BOTH Most likely;
13
E. Gans is the mastermind of ALL harm here, but will Now be reached through ALL the
14
named witnesses now, from The City to Randall, Plotz to McBride, and Joy Mathson to Skillings,
15
ETC.
16 593. Mathson (and Randall in a different area of Remingtons land) buried their
17 hazardous wastes, then covered them with miscellaneous redwood based material and then weeds
18 and ground covers, specifically imported, watered and tended in order to insure rapid growth.
19 John Mathson agreed around 2003-5 to move his stored materials, scrap iron, mill carts,
20 lumber and sawed to length firewood (see e.g. Photo #18) from the region of the property line
21
across the main dump area, and he did move about 85% of them which were not buried in
blackberries. THAT carefully stored material, moved immediately when requested by Remington in
22
late 2003-4, plus the blackberries and related weeds and plantings effectively BLOCKED all visual
23
access to the ground, so that it was not possible to see anything partially submerged at ground level.
24
That included the only 6-12 showing, among ferns and covered with 6 of redwood needles, of
25
15,000# concrete blocks eventually revealed after ALL surface debris was cleared, and after paths
26
and planting holes were excavated to reveal the actual size of buried debris. Typically, only about
27 50 # (of the total 2000-20,000#) was initially exposed, such that many more subsequent excavations
28 were required to show the actual estimated size and objectionability of many dumped and buried
objects. All mentioned here were much too large to excavate completely by hand but some were
cleaned for another 1-2 feet of their buried depth, so a more accurate estimate of their shape and
weight could be estimated, despite the fact that NONE were ever movable or even slightly loosened
by such partial hand excavations, as they just got BIGGER and bigger with depth, and require huge
200
1
powered excavation equipment, larger than a backhoe capable of digging and lifting 20-40,000
2
pound submerged and almost mortared-in to the ground concrete objects;
3
594. John MathsonsAnd his principal agent Gans serious fraudulent CONCEALMENT
4
from Remington of ALL salient relevant facts during the 2003-4 Agreed Fence negotiations
5
and the 2007 Handshake Agreement, when these issues were specifically discussed between the
6 parties and the courts, and the true, honest and correct facts were NOT VOLUNTEERED BY
7 MATHSON AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW, in fact the truth was concealed, intentionally confused
8 and misrepresented resulting in a substantial $2000 fraudulent judgment against Remington.
9 A. As above, John Mathson had two opportunities above where he could have, and the law
10 demands that he HAD TO DISCLOSE all relevant facts related to his contamination of Remingtons
land, beginning about 1998. He did NOT do so. He acknowledged his part in causing the contaminated
11
objects to now be at the bottom of his hill, he hung his head and tried to explain what was there was
12
accidental, no big deal and certainly not contaminated or a public health hazard but he did NOT reveal
13
all that he knew. In 2007, Remington and Mathson were standing-5 feet away from large asbestos
14
pipes sticking-out of the ground which he saw without comment or apology. HAD Mathson explained
15
what he knew then and there in either 2003 (when he should have explained we were STANDING on
16 15 deep of hazardous debris) or in 2007 then plaintiff would have understood the dump and its
17 ramifications many years sooner, hired an expert THEN, not 3 years later and known WHAT to test for
18 earlier and had all needed tests ready for the Federal forum in advance, not 3 weeks late;
19 B. Hence, Remington did not know of any of the concealed facts as above, in 2003 or 2007
20 when John Mathson had the legal duty to SPEAK and EXPLAIN, not merely to agree to a land
21
trade in exchange for not suing for removal of what Remington had not really discovered yet;
C. Mathson obviously intended to deceive Remington and to keep his contaminated burial
22
ground secret to his grave;
23
D. Remington liked and implicitly trusted his former friend John Mathson until about 2008,
24
like a brother, half-brother or very good friend and was shocked at the sour, angry, violently
25
destructive, intimidating, extortive and criminal direction Mathsons behavior has increasingly
26
taken every year since 2008. Remington very reasonably relied upon Mathsons veracity, integrity
27 and word for many years and up until March 2008. Before that, If John Mathson said nothing,
28 then presumably nothing happened, nothing was wrong, nothing was being fraudulently and
intentionally concealed, and no malicious acts of violence were being planned or perpetrated;
E. As above, Remington was harmed by that concealment in a dollar amount to be fully and
accurately calculated at the next trial in this matter. See the damages sections below and in the
RICO statement, plus the above multiple Renz analyses, for an assessment of the difficulties
201
1
involved in any accurate damages calculations here; however, all important and relevant variables
2
appear to be understood, and now must just be interpreted or adjudicated by a trier of fact.
3
4
595. MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO OTHERS, CACI 1906.
5
Introduction: Gans especially, as the ring-leader here has misrepresented most material case
6 facts to all Courts, experts, witnesses, to Remington and recently to a State JURY, in all forums, for 9
7 years, and climbing fast. All previous and subsequent relevant allegations to this cause of action are
8 hereby incorporated by reference herein.
9 A. As fully described and complained of in Volume II, under the RICO statutes which
10 overlap substantially with the pendant state fraud and criminal allegations herein, justice in
front of a federal or state jury is now expected to eventually require that some of these
11
defendants do jail time for their crimes, and if that occurs as a result of 10-15 years of this
12
litigation that would be fair and desirable. Who those VERY guilty ones are alleged to be, is
13
described with great particularity in Volume II, however, without Gans demonic master plans,
14
Lawrences absolutely unlimited financing, and John Mathsons almost daily extortive, violent
15
and criminally destructive acts, these cases wouldve been over 10 years ago, before they even
16 started. In fact, Gans has deliberately perpetuated these cases for his own financial gain and has
17 repeatedly unsettled or prevented probable reasonable settlements at least 3-4 times, prior to
18 September 2011 alone. It is therefore Remingtons belief that Gans by himself has caused him
19 several million dollars of damages, which if he could recover the last 10 years of his lost golden
20 years, from a genie, devil or angel, Remington would certainly not take that money as
21
compensation for those much more valuable, never regainable years.
596. Useful as background only, especially in the RICO action and also in the fraud and
22
tortious allegations herein, (but Not specifically actionable here due to the California
23
litigation privilege), are the following Gans criminal violations fully explained in the RICO
24
Statement in Volume II, around pages 6-77. Underlying criminal acts here which are relevant for
25
impeachment during the next trials, imminent federal pre-trial written discovery, and the next
26
federal and state depositions related to these fraud allegations, are:
27 A. At the SOL trial, Gans egregiously tricked Remington with surprise collusive perjured
28 testimony, deliberately undisclosed in prior Special Interrogatories or numerous appropriate pre-
trial forums, presumably because that testimony was not needed, conceived or concocted and

202
1
coached to John and Joy Mathson, Costa, Kishpaugh, Skillings and Randall, et al, until only a week
2
before trial31. The discovery and relevant motion documents prove that some of it may have been
3
plotted since the 2011 schedule trials, however most of it and most fundamentally the John Mathson
4
master-perjury was conceived very close to the trial, otherwise Gans and defendants seriously
5
abrogated and violated their most solemn discovery obligations in their multiple special
6 interrogatories on this exact subject where John Mathsons 2016 testimony was entirely omitted,
7 and not even hinted at. What he swore was his testimony in many hundreds of pages of depositions
8 and declarations was entirely different, and properly presented at the next trial will conclusively
9 prove that his testimony was manufactured, coached by Gans and entirely embellished way from
10 any semblance of truth. Many of the other perjurers, such as Kishpaugh, had their anticipated
testimony clearly specified in 2011, but by 2016 it was all totally, materially and profoundly
11
different and suddenly in the next five years they miraculously recalled numerous other
12
conclusively prejudicial evidence against Remington, which since Remington knows the case facts
13
better than anyone else (especially better than Gans and John Mathson), has concluded was blatant
14
perjury of the worst kind. Remington can hardly contain himself now to wait for the notice
15
deposition of a number of witnesses, especially Kishpaugh, Joy Mathson, McBride, Nelson and
16 Plotz, for starters.
17 B. Gans and Ferriman (at a minimum) are KNOWN to have made serious, material false
18 representations concerning plaintiff and John Aveggio to SHNs management, lower echelon testers,
19 Jeff Nelson, LACO Associates, John Foget and to Maje Hoyos and the Countys soil and water
20 tester, involved on the Remington property in December 2011. THAT violated CACI 1906, as to
21
Misrepresentations Made to Persons Other than Plaintiff by, specifically:
22
23 31 Remingtons vehement sound, honest objections, evidence and impeachment proofs have so
far been ignored by the courts. Gans prejudicially obstructed justice here by OMISSION, when he
24
swore to the evidence he had for MANY years, but then fabricated irrefutable gang-based false
25 testimony out of desperation after Skillings testimony was 100% refuted by 2003 photographs, and the
court strangely and detrimentally allowed it all in without comment, in July 2016. Now that
26 Remington understands Gans desperation and array of perjuring witnesses to use on any issue, he has
had to modify his cross-examination tactics, plan more depositions to solidify the perjury earlier and
27 also use co-counsel in strategic places where it is simply Remingtons word against 5 perjurers. Said
coached perjurers, who suspiciously and self-servingly recall all details of meaningless encounters
28 from 20 years ago, but heard nothing and just purportedly saw the incriminating conversations,
between John Mathson and Remington, falsely taking place, can be handled next time when
anticipated in advance. Nor is John Mathson likely to be so readily believed with a more sophisticated,
educated big city jury, when he relates all details different in every repetitive telling. Additionally,
as he gets tired after about an hour by default he starts telling the truth, to Gans Horror, which when
that happens next on the record should be fatal, and maybe his August 2016 errors will already yet
prove to be fatal.
203
1
C. Ferriman especially was reported by Maje Hoyos to have complained to and told her
2
County tester that the December 2011 County tests (as well as SHNs earlier August 2011 tests)
3
could NOT have been accurate and that someone must have poured gasoline or diesel on the
4
ground at one of their testing sites. That someone was alleged by Gans and his enterprise
5
soldiers to have been none other than Remington, the (scientifically impossible) cause of all
6 contamination on both sites!
7 D. The two county testers themselves did not conclude any of that independently, as THEY
8 chose the sampling sites and saw nothing unusual, at any time, nor did the leaders of the testing:
9 Hoyos, Bruckner, Foget and Aveggio, Johnson, among others; otherwise, had they seen any
10 irregularities as frivolously claimed by the RICO enterprise, said responsible and conscientious
testers would have obviously tested somewhere else, where they could report the results with
11
integrity, as they ALL did in this case. Ferriman, on the other hand had a clear, insurmountable bias,
12
is inaccurate in his views, or has now just been totally intimidated into a corrupt situation, has
13
probably been bribed by Gans or in any event his reports have been fraudulently drafted by Gans
14
for his signature, and if Ferriman had ever had any doubts about substances supposedly dumped
15
on the ground on Remingtons land, he could have done his own testing at any time. Ferriman is
16 not stupid, nor is he honest either, but if he had ever had any doubts about the widespread and
17 extensive contamination on Remingtons land, which he personally saw and smelled, then he would
18 have conducted the unlimited amount of tests that they could afford. Ferriman had several years of
19 opportunities to test, but was always afraid to do so because it was clear to the eye and the nose
20 that most of the large areas below Mathsons contaminated dump were contaminated with old
21
degraded hydrocarbons, from the 1930s-60s, asbestos, E. coli and other toxic substances.
E. Ferriman knew his gossiping, unscientifically- based or substantiated misrepresentations
22
would be repeated around the industry, from SHN to LACO and make it hard for Remington to
23
replace his dead expert Aveggio, which it was. Gans enterprise succeeded. It reached Nelson and
24
caused him to fearfully, fraudulently, negligently, improperly and unlawfully breaches litigation
25
services contract with Remington which at that time fully transferred to Mike Foget. Gans RICO
26
enterprise thus intentionally forced Remington go out of the area to find a qualified expert and they
27 most importantly succeeded in causing Nelson to remove the crucial, outstanding local
28 environmental expert, Mike Foget of SHN, from Remingtons trial expert team. Gans thought that
Remingtons case was by his above corrupt and extortive acts, and was obviously very displeased
when Remington discovered Dr. McEdwards from Laytonville without much difficulty, however it
did take probably 8-10 hours of searching.

204
1
F. Eventually, Remington had to go out-of-the area and beyond the deceptive local circle
2
poisoned by Ferriman. Doing that DID help to find a superior expert above the caliper of Eurekas
3
finest. There were other negative ramifications of Ferrimans misrepresentations and self-serving
4
factual errors, including: Remington had to plan more expensive tests by people who cost a lot of
5
money just to bring-up here; Ferriman was trying to back-up his erroneous testimony that the obvious
6 sheens on all water in the swamp area was redwood decay based and not hydrocarbon-based;
7 Ferriman was trying to justify and circumvent his own testing failures in that area by distracting
8 anyone who would listen and focusing them on possible deception or fraud by Remington, rather than
9 on the TRUE contaminators, RAO, Mathson and the other defendants. Their plan was
10 displacement of focus from the BAD guys, to trying to blame THEIR crimes on the GOOD guy,
victim, here Remington, and SHN, and they mostly succeeded, at least in the short term. Discovery is
11
now needed in this area, however they appear to have thoroughly trashed the preeminent expert
12
Aveggio, who is no longer here to defend himself, or he would have done so very eloquently, as like
13
the County he had 40-50 other places to test, and chose his spots wisely, ethically, and on his own.
14
G. In any case, not surprisingly, as discussed above, Ferrimans fraudulent misrepresentation
15
and slanders apparently reached the ENTIRE local environmental community and, without
16 limitations, caused; SHNs Jeff Nelson to bow-out of here, breach an important, valuable and
17 potentially very expensively and damaging contract, pull Foget from Remington as his sole expert,
18 despite our simple written, but complex estopped course of conduct contract and to abrogate all
19 responsibility and commitments to Remington; LACO to avoid getting involved here, which would
20 have been cost effective, and with whom Remington had a long and successful established prior
21
relationship; suspicion to be aroused in the County Hazmat Division at all levels, including Maje
Hoyos who mentioned this at her deposition and elsewhere. ALL of the above illicit, corrupt,
22
unethical and/or flagrantly illegal activities were damaging and costly to Remington, prejudicial to
23
him and his experts within the local testing and sampling community; and, damaged Remington at
24
least $30,000, just as to removing Foget and SHNs withdrawal alone from their litigation support
25
contract. See RICO statement, formerly) Volume II pages 148-163 for more details on Nelsons
26
criminal violations herein, which have now gravitated far beyond the mere tortious interference
27 with and breach of contract alleged herein. In other words, now see the RICO statement at II, 2I for
28 more detailed discussions of Nelsons involvement and implication in Gans RICO racketeering
enterprise, which TREBLE damaged Remington according to proofs.
597. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND COLLUSION, CACI 3600.

205
1
Here we have a variety of at least 5-6, or more separate overlapping conspiracies, as below, e.g
2
601.
3
Remington claims that he was harmed by defendants collusive, conspiratorial cover-up of
4
defendants major contaminating trespass and nuisance, and that defendants are responsible for all
5
the harm that proximately resulted thereby, because they were part of a major conspiracy to commit
6 criminal trespass nuisance and vandalism on Remingtons property, as noted above.
7 598. Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a wrongful act. Such an
8 agreement may be made orally or in writing or maybe implied by the conduct of the parties. If you
9 find that the named defendants in the spirit of the tortious collusive conspiracies, first with each
10 other and later with Gans and the other members of the Mitchell firm specifically named in Volume
II and the RICO statement, committed the various acts of fraud in RICO conspiracy cited in BOTH
11
volumes one and two of this complaint which harmed Remington, then you must determine whether
12
said defendants are also responsible for that harm; and, if so, which ones caused which specific
13
harm to Remington and his business.
14
599. Said defendants are responsible if Remington proves that all of the named defendants
15
plus Gans, Randall and some of the other RICO conspirators were aware that said co-conspirators
16 and others planned to cover-up the magnitude of their criminal trespass with hazardous materials,
17 initially as a state garden-variety fraudulent concealment, but later under the guise of a RICO
18 enterprise. Remington also intends to prove that by 2015, said defendants agreed with and
19 fraudulently colluded with their fellow co-conspirators and the others named herein, and then
20 intended that said trespasses, covering-up perjury and the numerous other specified associated
21
unethical acts of advocacy were committed to further the stated objectives of the RICO enterprise,
as per pages 390-410 of the RICO statement and elsewhere.
22
600. Further, therefore, in this state action, if you find that the federally named state
23
environmental defendants then agreed to cooperate with Gans and said formalized RICO
24
conspiracy, as described, to do literally anything necessary to defeat Remington, then you must find
25
that said defendants were involved in an illegal conspiracy with punishment according to state and
26
federal RICO law, as presently filed an alleged. Remington also alleges herein that all said
27 defendants had knowledge of Gan wrongful activities, cooperated in its furtherance and also agreed
28 to advance the RICO enterprises objectives, all of which harmed Remington in provable amounts
according to proofs at trial.
601. Examples of some of the types of defendants conspiracies include, without limitation:
(A) The initial hauling, sorting and 1998-2001 contaminating acts of intentionally burying
hazardous debris and then concealing them with brush on top of the ground, on Remingtons
206
1
property by RAO, the City and Mathson were a conspiracy; (B) The fraudulent and deliberate gross
2
understatements of all toxicity, volume and all damage-causing parameters, under the false and
3
knowingly fraudulent guise of incompetent testing and knowingly false summaries thereof, and
4
who is culpable for all of that, as alluded to in the RICO statement, is a somewhat different
5
conspiracy; and, (C) The basic major COVER-UP of all aspects of these numerous associated
6 crimes, including WHO was guilty of WHAT and WHEN32, and what actual measurable damage
7 was caused by each occurrence, is a third conspiracy; and (D) 4th: Gans overt, fraudulent and
8 sophistic 2015-16 efforts in DR080669 and beyond, to outrageously blame Remington, the only
9 victim here for contaminating all sites in that watershed himself, prior to there obviously
10 anticipated severance and their resulting panicked extortive settlement, intended to successfully
get rid of Harvey Roberts, is a FOURTH conspiracy.
11
602. A FIFTH Generalized type of conspiracy involved defendants making continuous
12
irrational and false complaints to approximately 40 different governmental agencies of all
13
kinds and at all levels of government, for many years and continuing into 2016-17. That subject has
14
been explained extensively in Remingtons prior state complaints, and one small excerpt from same
15
is as follows33:
16
32. For example, as related to some of the more low-profile alleged criminal actors involved here, such as
17
Brisso, Randall, Nelson, Kloeppel, McBride, Hilfiker, Martel and related LAFCo conspirators, and even Pulley.
18 See RICO statement for full details regarding the who, what and when for all allegedly RICO defendants and
what their direct damages to Remington and the Burl Tree allegedly were, and continue to be in most cases.
19 33. Plaintiffs every action, such as private urination on his densely wooded highly secluded land, is also,
obnoxiously closely watched and photographed daily by Defendants Mathsons (by numerous odd and
20 creative ruses, photography blinds and other devices). Additionally, several times a year Defendants still
continue to make irrational complaints to one governmental agency, or another, concerning cutting trees and
21 brush, the use of California approved herbicides, fungicides, drip irrigation and captured Spring water, to the
planning commission about stored materials which defendants purportedly dont like, the Humboldt
22
Community Services Water district about irrigation activities, or the recent harassment complaint to County
23 Public Works, purportedly about Plaintiffs DANGEROUS hedge (believe it or not), which pruning of that
huge hedge is done by the County themselves, and was once delayed a couple weeks due to THEIR vacation
24 schedules. Meanwhile, the Mathsons successfully complained to numerous unrelated, irrelevant County
Departments, like Community Development, resulting in lots of wasted time, a useless, unnecessary Demand
25 letter to Plaintiff, and phone calls to prompt one of their own County departments to move quicker to shut
those Mathsons up (you cant make this stuff up!). THUS, Plaintiffs primary enjoyment in life and peaceful
26 enjoyment and occupation and maintenance of his large estate and gardens have been destroyed by
Defendants. The truth is that Gans, Kishpaugh, Mathson and the other defendants dont care at all what
27
Remington does or does not do on his property, they just want to harass, intimidate, extort and make his life
28 miserable enough for him to end his contamination lawsuits and move from Westgate Drive.
The Mathsons also ALWAYS complain to the County Health Department whenever Plaintiff does any
lawful spraying with substances permitted in California, for weeds or fungi, like Round-up and Heritage, or if
he legally burns some garden debris, etc. Fortunately, most local agencies are finally tired of Mathsons
frivolous complaints and just ignore most of them now, without bothering Plaintiff over every monthly
complaint, about the above, or whatever they conceive of NEXT. In short, the Mathsons are like
neighbors from hell. AS JOY angrily put it in 2006: We dont want you living here and are going
to get together with the neighbors and DRIVE YOU OUT.
207
1
603. There are MORE conspiracies, corrupt undertones and related frauds than those 5-6 total
2
STATE conspiracies, when we get into the DETAILS here, each defendants roles, and then
3
broaden the entire investigation and analysis into the RICO allegations in the lengthy, particularized
4
RICO statement. For example, a SIXTH conspiracy (E) is: The rampant, felonious evidence
5
spoliation related to #8 below (after page 245), but taking on a life of its own as Mathson and his
6 corrupt local RICO drugged-out gang change and sanitize the sites daily.
7 604. As defendants witnesses further broaden their estopped practices of perjuring themselves
8 on any issue which Gans writes a script for and then requests them to testify about it and swear to it.
9 That latter corrupt and organized criminal practice is soon expected to greatly broaden into Gans
10 scripted perjuring puppets soon attempting to frame Remington by accusing him en masse of
something which he did not do. Shortly, they will all swear that they SAW Remington do
11
something BAD, anything which looks terrible, is inhumane and preferably is a state crime. For
12
example, the Westgate RICO gang might shoot, and kill or seriously wound, a couple of baby deer
13
with a crossbow and then swear that 4-5 of them saw a Remington do it with the very crossbow that
14
one of them just sold to him recently. Or, perhaps they will attempt to frame Remington over some
15
other presently unknown issue, which Gans needs suddenly and unexpectedly from his bewitched
16 minions. Gans is very creative and it wont take him long to think of something serious. In other
17 words, more plainly put: when a Mafia -like gang leader such as Gans has 10 to 15 witnesses who
18 will say anything that he orders them to say, what is to prevent them from soon framing Remington
19 by accusing him of another act (such as the false act of visiting Mathsons land twice in 1998),
20 which he did not commit and then easily getting 5-6 witnesses to swear that they saw Remington
21
in the area, and swear that he had motive, time and the means, etc. Of course, Gans does all that
much more subtly. Gans and his enterprise only needs one witness that purportedly saw Remington
22
commit said phantom, false, illegal act, such as killing a tiny baby deer for example, plus several
23
other witnesses that just happened to be standing around that day that claim they absolutely and
24
unmistakably saw Remington try to kill a deer or saw him carrying-out deer or other dead
25
animals from his property, and offered to give them the meat free, etc. Actually, sad but true, this is
26
a very real example, because they have obviously been attempting to set-up Remington on that
27 bogus charge for many years, which Remington will argue, present evidence and prove at the
28 next trial.
Whether any of that is parenthetically relevant to a jury considering emotional and punitive damages,
remains to be seen, however John Mathson, the former Mr. nice guy has turned bitter, CRIMINAL and
irrational in all respects and BOTH Mathsons are now A LOT LESS SYMPATHETIC, REASONABLE AND
RATIONAL than when this all began in 2006. In San Francisco, Remington believes they will be intensely
disliked and probably hated by many.

208
1
605. Perhaps the point has been made, and perhaps not. The point is, Gans, Mathson and the
2
other defendants in both parts of this action will soon attempt to frame Remington in some
3
manner, because they have no defense to any of these other allegations. That is a near certainty
4
now that they have a well-rehearsed cast of perjurers that can follow a Gans fictional script and
5
testify to it reasonably consistently at a trial before a jury, while making appropriate comments and
6 eye contacts. Their desperation to achieve their RICO enterprise goals means they will ruthlessly do
7 anything and violate any law necessary, which ordinary Count, State and Federal laws are virtually
8 meaningless to a criminal enterprise run by and for a group of corrupt attorneys who have
9 extraordinary influence within the state courts and regulatory entities, as explained. If all Gans
10 extra-legal, framing attempts and almost infinite possibilities of other creative corrupt activities
above fail, then Remington is likely a dead man, and these documents will become of significant
11
interest to a larger audience of criminal investigators.
12
606. The initial unjust enrichment by the original environmental defendants, now
13
perpetuated in a totally different manner by Gans and Lawrences alleged criminal
14
organization are and were both solely intended to make HUGE PROFITS for themselves and
15
all associated members of the initial criminal dumping operation and now the present RICO
16 covering-up and getting away with all of their crimes enterprise, which now of course is
17 focused on concealing all of those corrupt activities, since at least 1998, and the present
18 corrupt subterfuge, which totally surrounds everything Gans does in these cases today.
19 607. This conspiracy (at least the part which affects Remington today34) began among RAO,
20 Mathson and the City in 1998 if not sooner, to make BIG MONEY by violating more than 50 laws
21
at all governmental levels and to also leave the Mathsons with a nice vastly expanded lawn and
Remington with a hazardous waste dump on his valuable estate. Until now, that initial conspiracy
22
and subsequent RICO enterprise cover-up has succeeded dramatically and flawlessly.
23
608. Everything said co-conspirators did was TOP SECRET and still is, without limitation: The
24
massive importation of illegal sources of hydrocarbons, including the multiple gas-station
25
remediation contracts, asbestos sources, and large amount of illicit dumping of very toxic tar-based
26
roofing materials by presently unknown contractors; the very unlawful hazardous trucking of many
27 types of hazardous materials, including E. coli and likely other biological wastes, without permits,
28
34.As explained above, Remington has substantial first-hand information (i.e. he has physically seen them
himself) which indicates that RAO, Costa and other Humboldt County trucking outlaws have developed
these grossly unlawful hazardous waste dumps on other properties, in other years around the southern
Eureka area and beyond. During discovery that will be carefully investigated by Remington, but is only
peripherally relevant to these cases, where there is more than enough detail to investigate here alone,
without broadening the investigation. If the district attorney gets involved they will no doubt broaden their
criminal investigations to those other known residential dumps.
209
1
conscience or any ordinary scruples; The total lawlessness of defendants operations have always been
2
astounding, and include their lack of any kind of permits, for at least 90% of all of their illicit
3
activities, and the obvious and predictable desired result of virtually NO inspections, regulatory
4
supervision for anything they do or any required initial engineering, which is been the source of most
5
of these problems; and, finally, the endless excuses and fraudulent, illicit fabrications, mostly via
6 mail and wire fraud as alleged in the RICO statement, generated by Gans in all those areas to
7 initially cover-up their almost continuous crimes, to simulate and/or PRETEND that they have
8 contracts and legitimacy in their criminal enterprises activities. E.g., their fraudulent, deceptive,
9 non-permit to establish this hazardous waste dump in 1998, which was appropriately called a
10 disposal agreement issued by Humboldt County, as a liability release only, for RAO construction to
remove 250-yards of clean dirt from a County highway project, which they thereafter used as a
11
fraudulent ruse to develop a 4-5000 yd. hazardous waste dump on their neighbors property, plus
12
their own. Whether that gigantic fraud was masterminded by Olson and John Mathson or was entirely
13
invented later after the fact by their creative criminal mastermind Gans, is presently unknown.
14
However, because that is a significant case issue going forward, we will discover more about it in this
15
federal case and in DR140426. Defendant outrageous criminal behavior, now spearheaded by Gans,
16 et al, and imminently with Klucks anticipated, wholehearted and 110% assistance, is not expected to
17 last much longer, after the federal courts, FBI and other San Francisco federal and/or Humboldt
18 County criminal authorities enter here. Even if none of the above are interested in this, it will still go
19 forward on numerous fronts, as well soon become apparent. If Brisso manages to thwart any local
20 investigatory interest, or block them entirely, as is presently believed to be probable, Remington will
21
energetically pursue other options which would include the FBI and federal investigatory authorities
out of San Francisco, whose first priority may justifiably be to understand why it is that no Humboldt
22
County criminal authorities are even remotely interested in investigating Mr. Brisso or his RICO
23
Mitchell firm.
24
609. Gans is the undisputed RICO Godfather of this complex conspiracy solely focused
25
at Remington, whereas Plotz, Brisso and Kluck are now very analogous to mafia consiglieri in
26
their legal functions and protection of organized crime figures, including themselves, as discussed
27 further throughout Volume II. Remington may be flattered that Gans had to invent and develop a
28 large and complex RICO enterprise just to defeat an old pro per in a simple and obvious
contamination case, however it is stressful, taxing and time-consuming to battle such unlimited
financial powers. Therefore, the sooner this is all over the better from Remingtons perspective, as
long as justice has been served and defendants massive messes have been cleaned-up at their
expense. The various other enterprise associated lawyers, as named in the other several law firms
210
1
already affiliated with Gans enterprise are also already corruptly implicated with Gans past,
2
present and future RICO objectives, and the 5-6 or more additional attorneys that inevitably will
3
soon become involved here representing some of the other most obvious defendants in both sides
4
of this case, will initially be observed carefully. Although they all have many choices and
5
alternative methods of proceeding, such as studying all this and making up their own mind as to
6 what is right here; it is obviously completely inevitable that some, probably most will choose to
7 immediately consult Gans, find out what the true and honest facts are, simultaneously join the
8 enterprise and thereafter get all information, documents and strategic directions directly from
9 Gans and the Mitchell firm. The best examples of that method to date are Kluck and RAO who
10 work closer with Gans than anyone else in his enterprise, which imminently will lead to no good.
However, there are other ways to defend against this environmental and RICO case such as
11
ignoring the fact that Remington has detested Pro per status, and make a serious attempt to
12
understand the content of all these documents and then form an independent opinion about what
13
direction to go. A more respectable, legitimate, traditional and reasonable stance after
14
understanding these lawsuits might be to attempt to deal with Remington independently of the
15
enterprise initially (e.g.,The City, perhaps, for example). One advantage of that method in the case
16 of the numerous examples described above and throughout, is that Remington needs at least one
17 enterprise member to break with Gans and tell the truth in order to expedite and streamline these
18 cases. Until that occurs, there will be additional years of discovery, investigations and complex
19 cover-ups and numerous new smaller collusive conspiracies, frauds all of which will gradually
20 become federal crimes subject to imprisonment under the federal code cited. A solution sooner is
21
better for all, but if that is not possible this will continue to the end, in state or federal court, or
BOTH.
22
610. Generally, all scientific measurement and evidentiary parameters, on both sites
23
are grossly understated by the active conspiratorial defendants, which should just be read BY
24
Gans, because he writes all substantive scripts here for all defendants named herein in Volumes
25
I-III, which include without limitation: The toxicity and variety of hazardous materials have been
26
traditionally understated by at least 90%; Whether toxic rusting drums and biological medical or
27 radioactive waste exists here, as anecdotally inferred, has been entirely blocked in DR140426
28 discovery attempts for nearly 3 years; The volume, weight and infectiousness of the
contaminants on Remingtons property have been understated by at least 1000%; As well as
defendants deliberateness, vindictiveness, hate for Remington, and the magnitude, extent and
carefulness of the sorting of the worst stuff onto Remingtons land, etc, have also all been
deliberately grossly understated by Gans. Some of the above are the basis for a separate
211
1
conspiracy, potentially additional separate future continuing successive action lawsuits, involving
2
many but NOT all co-conspirators and defendants named herein, as may be required in the future;
3
611. The COVER-UP by Gans and his RICO leadership of all material, honest facts in
4
these lawsuits still occurs and continues today. ALL defendants (i.e., ALL of them cited directly
5
and/or only peripherally to date) did, still DO, and are expected to continue to do in the future, the
6 numerous illicit and corrupt activities cited herein. All of those named illicit crimes and activities
7 were (and still are) a violation of state, county or federal law, so 100% of all the original 1998 state
8 conspiracy and the current federal RICO enterprises cover-up and related destructive activities, of
9 all types, are all either directed specifically against Remington or the Burl Tree. Due to the gross
10 criminality involved here, obviously Gans and his Mitchell firm leadership keep all of their plans
and corrupt activities absolutely top secret, at least until now, and they even conspiratorially
11
conceal most of these facts from each other, now, except obviously on a need to know basis or
12
as inferred with common sense, based upon the rather massive array of already available evidence
13
concerning this RICO enterprise, and as explained on that basis in the RICO Statement, and which
14
would take at least 700+ more tightly edited pages, at the next complete rewrite, to properly explain
15
these RICO frauds with the required specificity under state and federal law.
16 612. Thus, rather obviously, not all co-defendants are aware of all aspects of each
17 conspiracy, and it may be assumed that most are not aware of any aspects, issues, evidence or
18 proofs of any criminal conspiracy at all. The City, for example, and its present leadership is
19 most likely not aware of any of these 1998 or subsequent allegations. Although there may be
20 conspirators from 1998 or upper management which is familiar with hauling contracts made
21
between the city and RAO construction, but quite likely there is nobody left that knows anything
which is not buried in obsolete old file cabinets or possibly microfilm. Even a manager there today
22
who was a file clerk or equipment operator in 1998 would likely know nothing, but at best might be
23
vaguely cognizant of the initial conspiracy with RAO to get their asbestos trucked-away cheap,
24
quite probably without understanding WHERE it was going and why it was only 80-90% of any
25
other bids, or potentially half or a tenth the price of their average bidders. However, OLSON would
26
obviously get as much money out of the city for his hauling as possible and would probably
27 conclusively determine what the lowest bids were and then underbid them by a small amount, as
28 was done in most hauling industries, of which Remington was a significant local part of, during the
20th century.
613. Additionally, Costa, Kishpaugh, Evans, Randall probably, Nelson, Hilfiker, Skillings,
Joy Mathson, et al and possibly even McBride would not really understand, or need to know, the
technical details of the Blue Rocks 143 page fraudulent out-of-time testing report, or about
212
1
Gwinns 95% under statements of the encroaching volume; therefore, it is very obvious that Gans
2
would not and has not shared that useless information with most of them, outside of the Mitchell
3
firms RICO offices. Most of Gans witnesses are very narrow specialists, just getting highly and
4
probably over-paid by the hour for their prostitute-like sworn opinions, who know as little about,
5
and hence largely nothing about the pervasive criminal activities of all of the other enterprise
6 members, as is absolutely possible. Therefore, just like in any criminal, spying or espionage
7 organization, everyone has a tightly compartmentalized specialty which no one else knows or
8 understands so when one is caught and/or tortured not too much critical information or secret codes
9 can be revealed to the captors or authorities. Rather obviously, those principles apply here so that
10 criminally incriminating information cannot be revealed to spouses, children and others who might
publicize the crimes which Gans is obviously not proud of and would like to pretend never
11
happened. RICO enterprise leadership or soldiers who dont know many details about anything, can
12
then testify or be examined at depositions or trials and then cant make overly serious errors and
13
reveal all of the other associated criminal activities which they dont know anything about. The
14
cover-up for Gans and Mathson is MUCH broader than that for the city or possibly even Randall
15
who may possibly be out-of-the loop as to the contemporary serial felony vandalisms and evidence
16 destruction and removal, although he may be an accessory to everything by this point as we shall
17 determine. As described, that is the intrinsic beauty of RICO: When we convict Mathson, Skillings,
18 Lawrence, Plotz and/or McBride, etc., of the easy mail fraud or the easy criminal vandalism and
19 property destruction, ETC which we have on surveillance video, then they all collapse in a pile
20 (perhaps on the prison floor), especially the central RICO members such as Nelson, Randall,
21
Kishpaugh and Gans, etc, merely by virtue of the obvious proven associations which are totally
obvious and established in the US mail, email and monetary payment trails, before we even get to
22
the extensive oral examinations, where 30 witnesses have to all be consistent with each other when
23
swearing under oath. The above concepts are also called need to know in intelligence circles,
24
which Remington assumes that Gans and his enterprise leadership faithfully followed as a common
25
sense policy. Remington formerly held a Top Secret military security clearance for years while
26
working at Research Analysis Corporation, and gained a working familiarity with document
27 security protocols and how intelligence investigators work and think.
28 614. As explained in the RICO statement, obviously the inner circle and top management of
the enterprise knew everything that was going on, and that would include ALL of those working in
the Mitchell firm offices, Linda Lawrence, John Mathson, their chief Criminal Conspirator and
dirty work operative on the ground, probably Kluck, but likely no one else, except on an extreme

213
1
need to know basis, if any, or as otherwise noted in the detailed RICO statement about each
2
RICO defendant, and the imminently likely to become same in the FAC.
3
615. The Fraudulent Conspiracy to blame all contamination here, on both sides, on
4
Remington, despite that absolute scientific impossibility. ALL named defendants, have been
5
collusively coached by ring-master,ventriloquist and now criminal RICO mastermind, Gans, to
6 swear falsely to various allegedly wrongful acts by Remington and to numerous phantom events
7 which just NEVER OCCURRED, most of which can be refuted with 2003 and other photographs
8 when the next unbiased court allows them into evidence. Next time, they will be admitted early
9 into evidence, here and in DR140426, and not saved for impeachment purposes, which Judge
10 Reinholtsen did not recognize as being a valid litigatory principal. Specifically, here, Gans has
falsely represented in the form of 1341 mail fraud when he responds consistently to any federal
11
discovery, that defendants toxic, contaminating TRESPASS and damages to Remingtons land,
12
are totally benign, minimal and insignificant, and seriously compounded that basic FALSE,
13
intentional mischaracterization, and BIG LIE, that defendants were blameless and it was in fact
14
the evil burl magnate Remington who caused all contamination and problems on both of these
15
two mountains. The fact that there is only toxic contamination on Mathsons mountain and
16 Remington side is totally pristine, and the additional minor fact that it would have been literally
17 impossible without alien levitation technology for Remington to contaminate anything on
18 Mathsons Mountain, does not bother Gans affect his false premise logic. However, here, a wise
19 judge that understands science at all, could easily grant Remington summary judgment just on the
20 oral arguments, logic and scientific testing alone, which summary judgment Remington did
21
reasonably request in the state case Twice, but was confronted with Gans massive deceptions, false
and fraudulent testing plus Judge Reinholtsen who did not understand the facts, the frauds or the
22
science, well enough to do much of anything. Said Judge, who was generally-speaking totally kind,
23
respectful and responsive to many of Remingtons arguments and legal positions, at one point in
24
May 2016 said with considerable irritation, in so many words his summary biased position, which
25
was that, concerning Gans, his tricks and fraudulent misrepresentations, he did not want to hear
26
it, so Remington dropped that subject for another day or two. Four (4) months later when Judge
27 Reinholtsens position had more fully solidified and been determined Remingtons two CCP 170.1-
28 6 motions were filed and determined with partial but not complete success.
616. A major HARM was caused to Remington by defendants massive hazardous materials
encroachments, in and after 1998 which continues. Defendants conspiracy here complained of is,
as above, to COVER-UP all the above, plus the many defendants known vandalisms, criminal

214
1
trespassing encroachments with VERY hazardous, restricted materials, buried and concealed on
2
Remingtons property, plus the thefts of timber, burl, machinery and iron, etc complained of.
3
617. Evidence spoliation is an on-going CRIME and continuous problem caused by John
4
Mathson and his local GANG, today, in 2015-17 and by Randall previously. Part of this
5
element is a sub-issue and former California cause of action, covered as such after page 147 below.
6 A. As discussed below, Defendants blatantly and provably, with numerous still and
7 extensive surveillance video photographs, spoiled, altered and minimized evidence; stole it and
8 entirely removed it from the sites, as though it was never there in the first place, and also buried it,
9 so it cant be seen, ETC. As discussed, Gans overriding, false and sophistic principle is to deceive
10 courts and juries simply with the artifice that you cant see it with your eyes then its not there.
618. In the good old days, many years ago, of old-fashioned ethical integrity, stealing,
11
removing and altering evidence, an illegal act by Mathson, as though he was OJ hosing down the
12
Bundy crime scene for hours during the evening following the crimes, was an obvious
13
imprisonable obstruction of justice crime. It no longer is in California, and the discussion of why
14
that is, is beyond the scope here.
15
619. Evidence spoliation has been removed as a felony in California by the Supreme Court,
16 so Remington will be requesting serious, substantive terminal magnitude sanctions from this court
17 at the proper time. Meanwhile, Gans and defendants dramatic, corrupt altering and removal of
18 MOST visible material surface evidence, which fortunately had been extensively photographed and
19 fully documented in the cases since 2008, will help to apprehend the criminal perpetrators, starting
20 with John Mathson and Gans. However, Gans and Mathsons clever evidence removal and
21
concealment has now taken-on a life of its own, as the sites change and alter naturally from gravity,
rain and wind forces, and as the enterprise members physically remove superficial surface debris.
22
As alluded to previously, Gans can provide 5-10 lying witnesses about anything, which here will
23
very predictably be, that there never were any debris on Remingtons land, despite the lying eyes of
24
all experts who visited the site since 2008, and the hundreds of lying photographs taken since,
25
and also prior to 2008. Defendants have in effect removed the body and most of the blood and
26
then fraudulently and falsely argued that there never was a body, and a bleeding dead person, or
27 two, never really existed at all, and the RICO enterprise has 5-10 people to swear to that, or to any
28 other false fact.
620. Additionally, but perhaps now unneeded as this was written 6 months ago, Gans lying
witnesses can now and WILL swear to anything Gans asks (by actual observed proofs during
August 2016, by multiple Gan admittedly very well-coached witnesses), as long as it is
derogatory to or antithetical to Remingtons interests, could undermine his veracity and integrity,
215
1
and/or it can blur or erase the TRUTH, which truths appear to all favor Remingtons position in
2
these cases. For that reason, all truth is antithetical to and absent from any of Gans
3
defensive positions.
4
621. As a further hypothetical example: If there is a MURDER here in this area, which
5
would most likely have been committed by Mathsons ruthless Westgate gang, as complained about
6 in the RICO statement, Gans will have exactly as many witnesses as he needs without over-
7 advocating to the point of appearing staged or suspiciously coincidental and maybe too contrived,
8 polished and well-rehearsed. Those carefully planned, scripted and then well-rehearsed witnesses
9 would then swear that they SAW Remington do it, so the later must be very careful in all of his
10 activities, surveillance videos of himself and must be continuously cognizant of appropriate alibis,
as to his whereabouts, and specific activities, etc. Whether Skillings and Olson helped John
11
Mathson, Kishpaugh, Randall, Costa, Evans, et al, in there removal of the majority of the toxic
12
asbestos pipes, and other visual proofs of the hazardous materials from the dump sites is not
13
presently positively known. That is because only Gans, John Mathson and several other presently
14
unidentified, probable experts are captured on video, carrying metal clipboards, moving objects
15
off the dump, frantically burying asbestos debris with redwood needles, and rolling heavy roundish
16 objects into Mathsons back yard for his regular County garbage pick-up, or for dump runs on his
17 small utility trailer, designed to haul his personal garbage and debris.
18 622. ALL of the named defendants, in both portions of this federal lawsuit, committed
19 SPECIFIC, provable, repetitive wrongful conspiratorial acts against Remington, which are
20 expected to escalate at the next trespass trial under the collusive control of criminal Gans, and
21
that is why they are specifically named here. Remington again urges this court to make the next
imminent trial a federal one, whereby said RICO and other defendants herein will in effect be afraid
22
to continue with their fraudulent deceptions and serial, collusive and orchestrated perjuries and
23
thereby be suddenly faced with telling the truth for the first time here, which when that occurs,
24
will FORCE all of Gans frivolous and incompetent defenses to shrivel-up and die, which
25
presumably would result in a quick settlement at a federal judge supervised settlement conference,
26
in the near term.
27 623. OTHER perjurers in the SOL trial, deceptive witnesses, and/or anticipated perjurers in
28 the next trial whether its state or federal, such as, without limitation: Costa, Pulley, Randall, Joy
Mathson, Kishpaugh, Nelson, etc, as per the Volume II RICO statement, are mostly NOT yet named
here or sued under this cause, as this state cause only pertains to the prior state-alleged trespass and
contamination allegations, trial, but also relates to anticipated, now required collusive false
testimony, for the reasons explained, in at least two different future trials not yet held. Future
216
1
federal perjury is now absolutely guaranteed, because Gans has 5-10 witnesses which now must
2
conclusively and consistently attempt to support Gans will-coach false narratives about a plethora
3
of material state contamination and SOL trial issues, which now are fully refuted and entirely
4
unsupportable.
5
624. THE Costa, Kishpaugh, BOTH Mathsons, Skillings, et al fabricated, fictionally written
6 by Gans, and very well-rehearsed (as if this were a TV series) Gans scripts are perhaps not
7 actionable now YET under these basic causes of action, but when we eventually can gradually prove
8 several of defendants lies, probably recourse for federal and state perjury can eventually be sought,
9 over the years, in an impeachment trial format. Oral testimonial perjury itself may not be
10 immediately actionable in state or federal court, but when it is associated among these hundreds of
important issues and more than 20 corrupt and deceptive witnesses and concerns all of the material
11
issues, it now is going to be impossible for Gans to keep his criminal lifeboat afloat for much
12
longer. Remington is counting on that, is focused on it exclusively, and is now prepared and
13
sufficiently motivated to pay for professional supporting trial-counsel, as needed, to make
14
absolutely sure that truth and justice prevail, next time, which is expected to include some prison
15
time and lost legal licenses.
16 625. Numerous Conspiratorial wrongful acts against Remington are on-going now, and
17 others are in-planning and rehearsals, awaiting various state proceedings, including Gans obviously
18 frivolous and retaliatory charges of malicious prosecution against Remington. Can you believe
19 that? Trivial to disprove on the merits, but who knows what deceptive and plausible appearing false
20 declarations Gans may write for someone?
21
626. Gans has lied to and deceived many courts and one jury here so far, while
simultaneously committing so many multiple collusive criminal acts with John Mathson, Skillings,
22
Kishpaugh, the Westgate drinking buddies and MD drug gang, and their fellow defendants here,
23
that we will focus THERE (at the NEXT TRIAL) in advance, during pretrial proceedings and
24
discovery. We have therefore already systematically begun to prove these FRAUDS, anticipated
25
continuing perjury consistent with the 2016 transcripts, more 128.6 violations, federal predicate
26
acts, etc. against Gans first, John Mathson second, Plotz, Brisso, McBride next, and then Randall,
27 Rich Olson, Skillings, Kishpaughs, Kluck, Nelson, et al, plus the others whom are expected to be
28 discovered, especially in the RAO and environmental testing organizations. The potentially bad
actors at the City Public Works Department are likely ALL LONG GONE now, but that is not
absolutely KNOWN today, based on a brief fall 2016 investigation. If NOT, the City Counsel,
Cyndey Day-Wilson named here can reveal that at any point, and designate someone else we can
depose imminently, as Remingtons ALL continuing allegations have no statute of limitations.
217
1
Obviously, producing assigned the specialist removal contract between the city and RAO would be
2
an excellent place to begin the citys defense, before they become involved in Gans RICO rackets.
3
626. This conspiracy was, has been and is still intended to force Remington to pay all
4
defendants legal costs plus cleanup his own land that they admitted they polluted all by
5
themselves, as a penalty for fighting for justice. Simply put, the conspiracy is designed to exactly
6 REVERSE reality and reverse justice and force the good guy and VICTIM Remington to pay for
7 the costs and fees of the BAD actors and criminals here, and to kiss their asses, cleanup after them,
8 and like it, as if he were a dutiful slave. This and many other passages herein were initially
9 written in October 2015 in state complaint and motion documents, and therefore many of these
10 statements under Pendant State claims, have been superseded by much further study, research,
analysis and understanding of the gross illegality of Gans extortive methods over the last several
11
years, which facts in history are now much better summarized in the 2017 RICO Statement, e.g. on
12
this topic see 5. (d) for the RICO enterprises common plan, purpose and detailed objectives
13
which require at least 20 pages to explain beginning around page 390. In other words, there are
14
known inconsistencies between what was known in 2014-15 compared to what we know today, and
15
in the event of any material inconsistencies, obviously the 2017 perspective would be the correct
16 statement and formulation of the true and most recent formulation of and perspective on the facts,
17 after the last six solid months of review and formulation, in terms of federal RICO law.
18 627. John and Joy Mathson, Olson, Skillings, Gans, Kishpaugh, Nelson, Randall and perhaps
19 a city employee were aware that Gans was masterminding and perpetuating a felonious
20 CONSPIRACY to defraud Remington out of a major remediation of his land by Mathson, Allied
21
and the other anticipated RAO-faction insurers, who pay Kluck, plus whichever additional insurer
backs Nelson. Simply put, Gans seeks endless attorney fees, and his Allied representative Ms.
22
Lawrence (personally) seek to slowly and torturously burn Remington (to death, if at all possible
23
legally, if thats what it takes) for being TOO determined and perseverant in battling these billion
24
dollar corporate forces to a stalemate for 10 years, and to make him pay for THEIR costs, plus HIS
25
OWN, plus a $200,000 remediation job. As reported in detail in the RICO statement, Gans told
26
Remington all of that in so many words, and clearly nothing has changed after their SOL victory, so
27 defendants are now resolved to continue this another 10 or 15 years. Gans latest deceptions, fraud
28 on the court and intentional unethical and obstruction of justice with respect to his flagrant
misinterpretation of state contamination law at the February 17, 2017 oral hearing about the future
of DR 080678, underline that point. That Oral hearing transcript alone, in conjunction with his 2016
post-trial brief, are the basis for several additional federal predicate acts of bribery, extortion, mail
fraud and obstruction of justice. Simply put, the Mathson-Gans-RAO insurers are trying to avoid
218
1
paying what they owe Remington, which even in a worst-case scenario is overall, at least in the
2
$500,000 range, but on top of that as discussed they are also extortionately and corruptly attempting
3
to force Remington instead to pay THEM about that much for fighting them for justice. None of
4
that will ever happen, because Remington can easily go bankrupt under the various understood
5
alternative scenarios, and presently existing convoluted property and investment ownerships.
6 628. Gans now plans, colludes and criminally schemes with all named co-conspirators,
7 except perhaps NOT the City (YET), except as through Brisso, who was often the city attorney.
8 Brisso obviously still controls the city and county government and when he speaks or suggests
9 something all in the bureaucracy cringe, wither and then eagerly submit, with great fear. Brisso
10 probably will now handle the city, as he always has done, and whether that handling is in
essence done by, FOR, and/or within the RICO enterprise, remains to be seen, very shortly. The city
11
will quickly have to decide whether they will allow Brisso and Gans to quickly suck Ms. Day-
12
Wilson perhaps unwittingly and unwillingly into this RICO blackhole, when all that is needed at
13
this stage is to carefully analyze the 1998 contracts with RAO, and the payments thereunder to
14
determine what wrongdoing occurred, and by whom.
15
629. The original criminal trespassory hazardous materials encroachments and subsequent
16 massive coverups, were all pre-planned and assisted by ALL named herein, and ALL gained a
17 financial benefit which continues, as to all. Advance knowledge of what was planned here by the
18 state case colluding conspiracy, which preceded and predated the alleged RICO enterprise, is not
19 necessary to implicate all defendants named here, since they all NOW know everything that is
20 going-on, or should know and also should have known all along of the various types of
21
criminality which fully saturates and envelops these defendants and these causes of action.
Specifically, what everyone reading and understanding these documents now obviously knows or
22
should know is that, without limitation: Gans is merely a good old-fashioned crook (like Nixon),
23
a serious lawyer wannabe, conducting an effective collusive, criminal, civil RICO racketeering
24
enterprise focus on the destruction of Remington in the Burl Tree. Since late 2015, Gans has
25
focused on the well-coached cover-up now to protect all of his main actors, including, without
26
limitation, and dependent upon which portion of the lawsuit they are presently named-in, which is
27 subject to frequent change based on the evidence: BOTH Mathsons, RAO, Olson, Skillings, Linda
28 Lawrence, Nelson and several of their associated insurers from paying what they justly owe. The
others named herein, or in the RICO causes of action, have less to gain, other than their exorbitant
witness fees-bribes, but by knowingly participating in the overall evil and wrongful goals and
objectives of the conspiracy, they are no less at fault, and hence are responsible under the cited laws

219
1
for their fair proportion of Remingtons damages (as described in some detail after about page 501
2
in the RICO statement of Volume II).
3
630. As Remington has attempted to explain with detailed particularity, however the subject
4
is rather abstract and esoteric, one reason that this federal suit is now broken into two parts, the
5
environmental and the RICO action, is because the RICO action only involves the past four years of
6 federal predicate acts and their resulting damages, whereas the environmental actions underlying
7 crimes and damages began in 1998, but do also still continue today. Therefore, the court in the
8 future will assess overall responsibility and punishments here in proportion to who did what, for
9 how long and how serious are the criminal violations. In other words, despite various easily
10 identifiable members of both culpable groups of defendants above having joined this cover-up,
which is occurring in both cases, but especially in the RICO action, after the primary felonious acts
11
of encroachment were performed, that does not absolve them of responsibility in the RICO action
12
obviously and in several known cases, witnesses could be found guilty in the 2008 case, which is
13
based upon the 1998 underlying crimes only, but not be implicated yet in the RICO action, and
14
perhaps they never will become involved in Gans corrupt Mafia-like coverups now ongoing. In any
15
case, knowing the facts now, eventually, which sad and corrupt facts are now fully disclosed herein,
16 so that they are all now absolutely well-known to all readers of these documents, as they relate to
17 the alleged RICO enterprise, makes said participants, who have read the RICO statement, guilty
18 and complicit now, if they werent already, see Peterson v. Cruickshank (1956) 144 Cal. App. 2d
19 148, 168-9.
20 631. Thus, all named defendants co-conspired here with equal culpability35, all led by
21
Gans evil, unethical, illegal motives intended to BREAK Remington, ideally KILL HIMBy
pathogenic or other means, otherwise just bankrupt him and force him to clean-up his own land plus
22
reimburse a billion dollar entity with endless resources for the insult of standing-up to them, as per
23
Volume II, of the RICO Statement which is fully incorporated in this document by constant
24
reference to it.
25
632. Gans leads by coaching perjury to fit the defensive elements he needs and here all
26
defendants are clearly fully cooperating with anything Gans says or wants, with no known ethical
27
35. It is useful to review here that as of February 22, 2017: (1) The RICO defendants consisted of: Gans,
28 Plotz, Brisso, McBride, Kloeppel, the Mitchell firm; RAO, Olson and Skillings; John Mathson, Jeff Nelson
and Linda Lawrence; whereas, on the cusp but so far omitted are Randall, BOTH Kishpaughs and the
city, with many others awaiting federal discovery and confirmation of their state perjury and/or corruption
to be reiterated federally. Additionally, (2) The environmental defendants today are John and Joy
Mathson; RAO, Olson and Skillings; Randall, the City, Kishpaugh and Nelson; and not Lawrence, Not
Gans, or any of the other Mitchell firm co-conspirators, as none are presently believed to have been
involved in the initial 1998 and subsequent criminal contaminations of Remingtons land, and the initial
coverups prior to 2008.
220
1
civilized limits of any kind apparent. Once again, this section relates to pendant state common
2
law conspiracy allegations, which have not yet been developed into several state RICO causes of
3
action, which re-characterization is anticipated imminently and also can be done rather easily, as
4
needed and in any case is likely to be included in the next state amended complaint, especially if the
5
RICO causes of action herein in Volume II are somehow surprisingly dismissed here in this federal
6 court.
7 633. As we have argued and can proveBy a preponderance of the evidence, Gans master
8 plan now is simple: BREAK Remington completely, kill or entirely cripple him somehow, and in
9 any case, force him to take nothing, PLUS pay for all defendants costs and for removal of all
10 Mathsons, et al hazardous debris on at least the Burl Trees land (if not both properties), for the
insult of challenging Gans and Allieds false, criminal RICO racketeering authority. In other
11
words, Remington is now confronted with the dangerous and thankless task of confronting the
12
Godfather and telling him bluntly that he is not going to pay any longer for protection from
13
Mathsons brutal vandalistic, extortive gang of criminals. Gans insidious master plan and those corrupt
14
RICO extortive protection racketeering objectives were clearly and rather slowly explained to
15
Remington verbally by Gans, who listened intently with some incredulity. THEREFORE, in
16 combination with all of the writings and well-known, carefully-observed and clearly recalled facts
17 from The last solid 10 years of litigation now, what Gans is doing or trying to do now, why and
18 how, could hardly be made any clearer to Remington, if Gans swore to it in a 10-page
19 declaration. His imminent deposition will be perfectly satisfactory, however. Since all of Gans
20 defense now is RICO-based, corrupt, unethical and must be stopped immediately, it now is
21
Remingtons job to attempt to convey what he knows to this court, to the state courts, and to a variety
of criminally related authorities, which communications on such complex topics are difficult,
22
especially for an older Pro Per, who is emotionally involved in these crimes as a long-time greatly-
23
suffering victim, and who is simply unable by nature to concisely state these facts and events only one
24
time and then assume that the courts are going to read and understand that one simple statement.
25
Rather, as is obviously evident herein, Remington believes more in the theories of speaking, which
26
entails stating what youre going to say, then SAYING IT long and clearly, and then summarizing it all
27 again at the end, by reiterating what it was that you just told your audience, for perhaps the majority
28 who somewhat dozed-off during all or part of the presentation. Remington took a good, brief speech
class once in the sixth grade, which apparently made more of a lasting impression than he might have
expected at about age 10-11. [Skipped #634-643 by accident]
644. See RICO Statement, Volume II at 5. (d), pages 489-513, for best exposition of and
detailed discussions of Gans systematic RICO enterprises objectives and common plan.
221
1
Gans and Allied knew they were legally liable, WRONG and would be fully defeated by Aveggios
2
unflappable, honest contamination facts and rebuttal of Gans entire frivolous defense, and therefore
3
offered a substantial but inadequate $100,000 settlement in 2011, but retracted it after Remingtons
4
previous Federal disclosure errors, and the strange, untimely death of Aveggio. Those factors
5
immediately gave Gans, Lawrence, Brisso and defendants the idea and motivation to forget justice,
6 the environment and what is right and likely inevitable, and try for complete VICTORY.
7 645. Cumulatively, Defendants, their currently involved attorneys and sole presently
8 discovered financier (Lawrence) are EVIL, corrupt and criminals. They KNOW WHAT IS
9 RIGHT HERE, and also all know that they are now doubling-down on the opposite: Fraud,
10 deceit, collusion, oppression, malice, ruthless criminality, multiple orchestrated PERJURIES (too
many to list here or to properly manage, we believe) as described in all of these associated
11
documents, Volumes I-III. Defendants minions and foot soldiers, from Skillings, Randall and Joy
12
Mathson to Ferriman and Gwinn, ETC., (Pulley seems straight so far) do not seem to care a bit for
13
ethics, what is right or for cleaning-up any California pollution or creek, etc. Defendants RICO
14
enterprise now only want to win, totally crush Remington, be well-paid and help the team,
15
while being enthusiastically led through hell by Gans, as he apparently and rather obviously, is
16 quite convincing and charismatic to a certain, widespread, local, uneducated Eurekan mentality, as
17 seems to adequately characterize MOST local jurors, and ALL currently named defendants,
18 excluding the city again, for the time being, in that generality. To anyone smart, sophisticated,
19 ethical, or really paying attention to everything here (like an appeals Court will), Gans is a bad
20 advocate requiring many additional, descriptive, more colorful and VERY negative adjectives,
21
which being civilly inappropriate, are therefore omitted here.
646. In Summary: Gans, Klucks, Randalls, John and Joy Mathsons (plus their daughter is a
22
third implicated and heavily involved Mathson) and Allieds, et als36 concerted plan and goals now
23
are very simple: CRUSH REMINGTON COMPLETELY BY BEATING ON HIM UNTIL HE
24
EITHER DIES OR BECOMES INCAPACITATED, FURTHER. Crushing in the sense used here,
25
is equal to GREAT financial HARM, and ideally total financial ruin and a disintegration of
26
Remingtons life and remaining semblance of happiness as he has known it, such as it is
27 these last few years. It could also involve a second arson attempt by defendants because burning
28 out Remingtons large nearly completed residence would likely have the desired effect of not
36. AGAIN, See footnote 35 above to make sense of and to distinguish among the current environmental
and RICO defendants which although substantially overlapping are far from identical. There are presently
three more RICO defendants than environmental ones and the court must study and understand the RICO
Statement to determine the status of Lawrence, the Mitchell firm members, Randall, the Kishpaughs and the
city, all of whom are not defendants in both portions of this federal lawsuit, as listed on the cover sheets.
222
1
affecting a rebuild, in this nasty, ugly, ungrateful and corrupt community. Each defendant cited was
2
involved, each in slightly different ways depending on what they bring to the table of Gans
3
illustrious, unlawful and horrible feast, as particularized in the RICO statement, and discussed in
4
footnotes 35-36 below.
5
647. Legality is not an issue or important consideration to Gans, and in fact it is anathema.
6 Anything is permissible here, to defendants, the more ruthless, dangerous and desperate, the better
7 Gans and the Mathson gang like it. Clearly they ALL agree on that utter ruthlessness, and their
8 expressly and/or tacitly, articulated principle: to show Remington no mercy until he is
9 destroyed, and forced to leave the area in utter humiliation and financial ruin.
10 648. Clearly Gans is the key to everything here, obviously like a Mafia racketeering
Godfather, and happily and very importantly only the Mathsons can assert privilege in regards to
11
Gans; and, he will now need to be deposed in regards to what he has done with regards to all of the
12
other named and presently unnamed RICO defendants, and specifically what he has written to and
13
for Kluck, Randall, Olson and Skillings, in these NEXT cases. Also the various obvious types of
14
1343 federal wire fraud were violated here repeatedly by Gans and his criminal soldiers, so
15
appropriate evidence of one or more of those is already being sought immediately. Many illegal,
16 tortious acts by defendants racketeering enterprise continued to be planned and enacted in 2016, and
17 also has remained constant into March 2017. For example, as explained above related to the
18 February 17, 2017 hearing, Gans and Plotzs multiple mail and wire frauds, obstruction of justice,
19 extortion, bribery, vandalisms and deliberate trickery, devices used and deceptions of a state court
20 judge have continued here, as have the enterprises criminal cover-ups of their serial suborning of
21
perjury and spoliation of and removing large quantities of crucial material evidence, continued
intimidation, slander, harassment, exaction and extortion of Remington and his witnesses, by many
22
of the named defendants, plus Kluck, more vandalism, almost daily plus many new encroaching,
23
trespassing acts, in the hard rains of early 2017, which is caused increased damages due to
24
defendants breach and violations of their $20,000 settlement agreement with Farmers Insurance and
25
Remington, explained elsewhere, ETC. As fully explained throughout these documents, Gans plan
26
has been for several years and is now continuing to be successfully executed in order to MAKE
27 Remington keep all defendants toxins, absorb and compensate himself for all damages caused by
28 them, including those by Randall, and additionally: Stop complaining about the contamination, stop
whining about Gans lack of ethics, lack of compassion and general criminal nature, like it, as
though it were a prison RAPE, and remove Mathsons messes himself at HIS expense or just leave it
and shut up about it.

223
1
649. LYING About everything in their writings, whether under oath or not, plus lying in
2
all of their oral testimony is defendants essential tool used here. That principle controls and
3
pervades all of Gans fabricating RICO enterprise testimony, his SUBORNING OF and systematic,
4
well-coached PERJURY, and generally his criminal syndicate-like COLLUSION towards
5
criminal goals, as a final objective, as fully described with all required particularity in the RICO
6 statement. Whatever Gans needs, he will write as a fictional litigatory script, and then his main
7 star John Mathson and many others will learn it, memorize it, be repetitively coached under an
8 unlimited budget for as many hours and days as needed, and then eventually swear to it
9 convincingly in writing or to a judge and jury.
10 650. It is now clear that is now Gans essential plan to use, as and when needed without
regard to what witnesses and specific testimony from same was previously disclosed in 2008-11, or
11
in this case what was 95% not disclosed in previous declarations and depositions, which fully
12
covered all of the undisclosed areas of testimony, in 2008-11. That lack of disclosure by Gans has
13
led to the inevitable conclusion that the offensive perjury which multiple defendants witnesses
14
swore to in the 2016 SOL trial, was entirely unknown in 2008-11 and was manufactured after that
15
time. We know exactly when that time was. Specifically, in late July 2016 when Gans became
16 desperate because his chief false witness Skillings was 100% repudiated by Remingtons 2003
17 impeachment photographs, THAT caused Gans to entirely rewrite his 2016 trial script. Remington
18 knows that is a fact, and exactly the day that the rewrite began, because he saw how pale and
19 white Gans face went while sitting only 6-feet away from Remington during pretrial hearings.
20 When Remington presented those 2003 impeachment photographs to the court, to get them
21
admitted into evidence many days in advance of their use for impeachment, Gans studied them with
extreme anxiety and agitation, as he watched his already bogus defense disintegrate before his eyes.
22
Judge Reinholtsen disallowed those crucial 2003 photos, permitted Gans to ignore his 2011 Special
23
Interrogatory disclosures of all his witnesses testimony, which was diametrically, improperly and
24
unlawfully reversed in summer 2016, creating extreme surprise and prejudice and Remington, all of
25
which was unacceptable, biased, unjust and will be appealed, as and when necessary.
26
27 651. ON-Going criminal Conspiracy, CACI 3601.

28 At least 5 of the above 6, or more, above and below alleged conspiracies continue
today. As above, Remington argues that defendants and all those specifically named here, actively
and continuing TODAY, in September 2016 (when initially written) and moving forward (into
March, 2017), collusively conspired to lie, deceive, misstate and misrepresent as needed in all
forums, whenever and wherever called upon to UNDERSTATE Defendants admitted contamination
224
1
of Remingtons land, THEIR role in said criminal contamination by hazardous materials, and the
2
other damages done thereto as determined for this last 3 year period, 2013-16. ALSO, Remington
3
hereby alleges in 2017 that each and every named defendant in both portions of this federal lawsuit
4
conspired to commit the specific acts alleged in the 580+ page RICO Statement attached, hereby
5
incorporated herein in this paragraph as though fully set forth here. Said defendants are therefore
6 responsible under state law, as explained in said above 3601, for all acts done and for all crimes
7 committed against Remington and his interests, as part of the conspiracy, whether said acts
8 occurred before or after he/she joined the conspiracy. Said conspiracy is elsewhere characterized as
9 a RICO conspiracy, however in the event that case, or portion of this case is dismissed, the same
10 conspiracy still exists under state law, and will be filed as such in an amendment to the complaint in
DR140426, after said federal dismissal, if any. Additionally, obviously, all of these related civil and
11
criminal conspiracy claims, as described with great particularity in the RICO statement, are eligible
12
for inclusion in this federal complaint as eligible pendant state claims, and therefore adjudication by
13
this court is nevertheless requested, independent of their eligibility under the RICO statutes, and all
14
for the reasons fully set forth herein, which include the present timeliness, competence, enormous
15
case backlogs and insufficient number of judges, and alleged ethical failures, at all levels of the
16 Humboldt County Courthouse, in the state system and the increasing likelihood and significant
17 danger that the state cases may never be fully resolved by the generally dysfunctional state system,
18 in the parties lifetimes.
19 652. As discussed in the section above, there were at least 6 types of collusion and conspiracy
20 involved here over the years, most still ACTIVE, and each defendant was involved to a different
21
extent and for different time frames and degree of criminality. Each will be discussed more
specifically and with greater particularity, and in turn by individual defendant, in the Oppositions to
22
defendants demurrers and their expected automatic Motion to dismiss, but has already been done
23
so with great particularity as set forth in the RICO statement. Obviously the role of each defendant
24
and degree of criminal GUILT completely varies in magnitude and type with each defendant,
25
however NONE are innocent, and under the allegations of 3601, everyone who can now be
26
proven to have entered into these various collusive conspiracies, or alternatively joined this RICO
27 racketeering enterprise which has the same general objectives, is now under California law a party
28 to every act previously or subsequently done by any of the others in pursuance of the conspiracies
actions and common schemes and plans as set forth in said RICO statement (cites). JOINED, as
meant above, or in the law, would involve and/or be inferred from evidence of any
engagements, communications and litigatory process- sharing with Gans or the RICO
enterprises attorney leadership, including Kluck, all designated members of the Mitchell firm
225
1
and any relevant members of the Stokes law firm; however, receiving any monetary payment,
2
whatsoever, from Gans, Lawrence or any enterprise leadership whom writes checks in these cases,
3
that can be attributed to Gans fraudulent racketeering activity and frivolous purported legal
4
defenses of any of the Remington versus Mathson lawsuits, would automatically qualify as both
5
joining and being an active, culpable and guilty member of the RICO enterprise, as described
6 and defined in considerable detail in Volume II of this complaint. More succinctly put, any witness
7 or expert that has received any payments from Gans to oppose Remington in these cases since
8 about 2011is automatically and by definition part of the state law ongoing conspiracy alleged,
9 plus they would become an active, present, culpable RICO enterprise member, in a generalized
10 sense, and hence responsible according to proofs for all enterprise illegal activity since at least
2011-12 and in some cases going back further. As with any generalization involving 40+ people,
11
probably there are a few obvious exceptions, such as because of death (Joe Costa) or refusing to
12
corruptly conspire against Remington, as in the case of Jack Hubbard, who is the only exception,
13
which comes to mind immediately.
14
A. What Gans touches here turns into criminality and possible prison time, as this continues
15
into the criminal sphere where it probably should have begun.
16 653. Many crimes occurred in the Mathson-Gans destructive criminal, vandalism-based
17 conspiracy which involved damage to Remingtons property of more than $100,000, fully set forth
18 in complained of in the RICO statement, which again is included by reference in its entirety herein.
19 654.Under 3600, 3601, et seq, plus RICO, whatever damages Remington can prove and
20 ascribe to John Mathson, Gans and their described illicit Westgate gang of co-conspirators, is now
21
ascribed to all named defendants in these lawsuits, state and federal. In other words, when Mathson
smashed Remingtons windows with rocks, attempted to arson his $500,000 structure, sabotaged all
22
of his irrigation operations, equipment, inventory, gardens, threatened his contractors machinery
23
and severely extorted both Remington and Figas to an unendurable degree, and inferentially others
24
according to proof, ETC, all of those acts are now irrefutably and inexorably tied and attributable to
25
all of the named defendants herein, according to the specific facts attached to each defendant,
26
specific date and criminal act.
27 655. For example, consider the criminal obstruction of justice, egregious spoliation of
28 evidence and witness tampering, surrounding the only visit and deposition of Dr. McEdwards on
about February 15, 2016. Described in detail in the RICO statement, succinctly put here, John
Mathson committed various criminal acts to intimidate, minimize, obstruct justice and conceal
material evidence from Dr. McEdwards. Since all of this was captured on surveillance video at
exact times and dates, it is positively known when John Mathson was tipped-off to the exact time
226
1
and date of the visit and given specific orders on what to tamper with, obscure and obstruct at the
2
contaminated dumpsites. What he did, why, when and what the effects of those trespassing and
3
illegal actions were is beyond the scope herein. The primary and known material point here is that
4
someone communicated to John Mathson exactly what to do, when to do it, and then he dutifully
5
DID it brilliantly, with great manic energy and enthusiasm as recorded on Remingtons extensive
6 surveillance video. Study of the RICO enterprise for many years makes it obvious that Russell
7 Gans issued that order to Mathson, because he was the only one that knew the exact dates and
8 situation, and also because the idea is believed to be too abstract, corrupt and imaginative for
9 anyone other than Gans to have conceived it. There are hundreds of similar odd and/or destructive
10 acts by various defendants on Remingtons many hours of surveillance video from his numerous
cameras, which we will probe with written and oral discovery before those impeachment videos are
11
exchanged.
12
656. What is presently unknown today and what the primary point of this above paragraph is,
13
is that we do not presently know who executed or communicated the order between Gans and John
14
Mathson. Someone called him on the telephone and explained the situation to him or to Joy
15
Mathson, but that someone could have been Plotz, Gans himself, Brisso, Kloeppel or McBride.
16 Thats five possibilities. Under the above fraudulent conspiracy laws, it appears to be unimportant
17 who actually made the phone call, as all were aware of it and all conspired against Remington,
18 and hence all our jointly responsible for John Mathsons criminal activities, as though they
19 were all out there in the field helping him remove evidence, bury it and take extortive, close-up
20 flash photographs which simulated gunshots and startled us. We have many such examples, and
21
eventually we will get to the truth and/or bottom of some of these law violating evidence
spoliation violations, obstructions of justice and witness tampering, etc. lot of money changed
22
hands between these RICO defendants and bribery has been alleged here and will certainly be
23
studied with respect to paying perjurers such as Costa, Skillings and Kishpaugh 5-10 times more
24
money than what their time is worth on the open job market. How much did Gans, Lawrence and
25
the RICO enterprise pay to Kishpaugh for his perjured testimony when his house was directly in
26
foreclosure proceedings at the exact time when he was falsely testifying, and he required thousands
27 of dollars to attempt to save it? Additionally, all subjects of his testimony had been fully disclosed
28 in 2011, but in 2016 he radically departed from those disclosures and nearly buried Remington
single-handedly with this perjury, which had not been disclosed at all previously, and therefore was
fabricated about a week before trial. The substance of his state perjury will be dealt with in federal
discovery, and we have already complained in the RICO statement of his embellished perjury,
wherein first he lied and then he said that lie and false fact happened a couple of times,
227
1
when his script required only once. That embellishment will eventually haunt him big-time as well
2
his nervous little laughs interspersed with those lies.
3
657. Obviously, we will discover all phone and email records of the conspiracy and
4
enterprises top leadership members, because who actually ordered and guided John Mathson
5
aided and abetted a crime, and hence at the penalty stage will have somewhat greater
6 culpability, than someone who was sitting home watching football and had no idea any of this was
7 going on, at least in real time.
8 658. DAMAGES DONE BY DEFENDANTS involve ALL those categories of damages
9 named under Relief Requested, but their conspiracy involves NOT paying anything but
10 getting money out-of a poor and financially weakened Remington.

That damage includes, for example, here regarding Randall only, and is not limited to: The
11
major 2013 landslide and huge garden damages incurred by Remington, occurring where Randall
12
illicitly and without permission trespassed on Remingtons lands, strip day bank of vegetation,
13
destabilizing it as he removed more than a dozen Alders, which were purportedly blocking his ocean
14
view, from his rented home across the street; Plus that view was apparently also illegally enhanced
15
by removing numerous Remington tall trees and then stealing that wood for firewood, MANY cords
16 of it. Nothing ever grew back there where those Alders died at ground level, The ground covering
17 vegetation was trampled and destroyed, and over-time the bank further eroded and became entirely
18 destabilized and eventually a gigantic hundred and fifty foot section dropped 7-vertical feet
19 according to proofs. Randall stole the firewood and also corruptly deposited his personal household,
20 polluted debris in the area just now becoming discovered as a result of the slide. Since Randall is a
21
corrupt and collusive conspiracy and enterprise member, all of his illicit activities are now ascribed
to all named members of both illicit groups, as though the top RICO leadership personally
22
committed those crimes themselves, rather than just ordering them, condoning them or just laughing
23
about them, as serving Remington right, etc.
24
659. Financially and physically crushing Remington. As above, and as described in the
25
RICO statement (5D, around page 400+) in more detail, Defendants stated and/or thinly disguised
26
goals now, without limitation, are: To STEAL, fully appropriate and use Remingtons land free
27 and forever; defraud Remington out of his justly deserved damages for 10+-years of detriment, plus
28 back rent for a longer period, and climbing, and to make him pay ALL defendants COSTS (and at
grossly unfair and inflated Lode Star rates of 2-3 times what Allied and Lawrence actually pay
them) and to remove defendants hazardous contamination, including without restriction: The
minimum of 15,000# of asbestos and Chrysotile needing to be individually gathered and double-
bagged with masks and hazmat suits; the extensive lead and related toxic metals recorded; the
228
1
bacterial and infectious biological wastes from Mathsons illegal septic systems; the gigantic 10-15
2
ton reinforced concrete blocks requiring a huge excavator to move or load; and the several thousand
3
cubic yards of highly concentrated used motor oil, diesel and gasoline hydrocarbon residues, from
4
several gas station remediations along Broadway, Etc. If during all these 10-30 years of litigations,
5
Remington fully succumbs to more pneumonia, immune system disintegrations, further debilitating
6 illnesses such as caused his Ramsey-Hunt syndromes instability and deafness, or IF he gets bush-
7 whacked or surprisingly and unexpectedly drives off the innocuous Walnut Drive on his own,
8 late at night, on the simple and safe trip which he has made more than 10,000 times, without any
9 incident whatsoever, then SO MUCH THE BETTER, from the racketeering Enterprises
10 perspective! Remington has never in his life had an accident involving another car or even his own
car in more than 50 years, so it would be unusual for something odd like that to happen now.
11
660. ALL of the above-named co-conspirators are potentially responsible for all acts of
12
this conspiracy, especially as regards the RICO defendants and causes of action as will be
13
individually clarified in future demurrer and motion to dismiss Oppositions, although the citys
14
posture is presently unclear, as are several others, as partially explained that footnotes 35-36 above.
15
Exactly when, WHY, how Randall, Nelson, and quite possible The City joined-into this
16 conspiracy, Or the RICO enterprise explained in Volume II, is also presently unclear, until their
17 depositions and written discovery responses. Whether The City of Eureka is guilty of anything
18 or decides to join Gans RICO enterprise to cover up any wrongdoing they may have done back in
19 the mid-1990s, is entirely unknown today under the presently known facts, so will be subject to
20 future discovery, motions or perhaps a simple phone call, letter and copy of a contract.
21
661. Regarding Randall, however, the law IS VERY CLEAR, that once he has firmly
joined Gans RICO enterprise, which is now an established matter of record, and was absolutely
22
proven to Remington in March-May 2016, he is now responsible for all of the corrupt, unethical
23
and criminal state and federal predicate acts allegedly done by Gans, Skillings, Mathson and the
24
entire conspiracy, both BEFORE and after he as he enthusiastically and wholeheartedly joined up
25
he joined-up. Randall may now claim, or plead, that he did not even know about any of this at the
26
time of joining, nor what his role would be in bringing-down Remington, in an effort to distract
27 from his own guilt and save himself from possible personal criminally prosecutable timber thefts
28 and vandalisms, plus all of the several hundred other criminal acts committed by said above in spirit
see and RICO enterprise, which now have occurred in his name as well as those others provably
implicated in specific crimes. What we do know for sure now is that in March 2016, Randall was
fully on board with Gans and would not even meet or discuss any aspect of his crimes or testimony
with Remington so now will have to do formal discovery for many years within the legal system.
229
1
662.In other words, Under the RICO statutes fully delineated in volume II, Randall is also
2
now responsible for all criminal acts by Gans, Mathson, Skillings, Kishpaugh and all the other
3
proven defendants and alleged co-conspirators, AFTER and PREVIOUS TO WHEN he
4
joined, or while he was merely a non-participating passive member for a year or two, while
5
OTHERS were actually committing the criminal acts of vandalism, perjury and evidence
6 spoliation and suppression on behalf of the criminal ENTERPRISE. Some of which were done
7 in the NAME of Randall, and also in behalf of the several other supposedly, part-time only,
8 intermittently criminally-acting members of the conspiracy and the enterprise, See De Vries v.
9 Brumbeck, (1956) 144 Cal. App. 2D 148, 168-9; [Having been found to have joined, Randall,
10 Olson, Nelson, Costa, Skillings, Evans, Ferriman, Hillyard, Gwinn, Kishpaugh, et al are all ALSO,
similarly to Randall above, liable for all previous and PRESENTLY OCCURRING DAILY criminal
11
acts of said conspiracy, both before and after joining it. It is not necessary that Randall, in this
12
example, has performed any recent vandalistic acts or assisted Mathson, Kishpaugh, their
13
Westgate gang and RAOs employees with their felonious dumping, burial of hazardous materials
14
on Remingtons land, felony fence extortive vandalisms for 8-solid years, evidence spoliation and
15
systematic criminal coverups of all of their corrupt behaviors and continuing, or has personally
16 recently participated in the RICO enterprises serial, SEVERE, evidence tampering, proven 1951
17 Federal extortion, bribery, obstruction of justice and law enforcement, witness tampering, money
18 laundering and actionable deprivations of Remingtons cited rights, the 102 violating sales, use
19 and dealing in the various allegedly controlled substances described and/or the previously described
20 proven or provable suborning of criminal material perjury now expected to be repeated in federal
21
court, but all of the above applies to whichever forum or trial for the above crimes provably occur
next.
22
Frauds of Aiding and Abetting, CACI 3610.
23
663. Clear fraud. As fully explained above, below, and in the comprehensive and detailed
24
RICO statement which was the last, most up-to-date summary of the background facts drafted in
25
this case, all elements of that fraud are easily met here in Gans masterminded unethical plan to ruin
26
Remington financially; steal his land in actual effect, which substantial amount of land defendants
27 now have fully occupied for 19 years without any rent or compensation, which is about a $250,000
28 or more theft; Stay out of prison and avoid all culpability and liability for their crimes from 1998
through 2017; Force Remington to pay for ALL defendants legal fees, defense costs PLUS pay
himself the more than $200,000 to remove their admittedly dumped pollutants and hazardous
materials deposited on and buried 10-20 deep on his redwooded property in 1998; PLUS acquiesce

230
1
to Gans and his apprentice Plotzs other on-going conspiracies to accomplish the several other
2
related evil, criminal enterprises, unjust acts and improper goals above.
3
664. See also CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, above, for some other active, on-going
4
conspiracies which specific defendants are also aiding and abetting. Using a criminal enterprise
5
as alleged under the RICO act causes of action and objectives, Defendants have and are still
6 systematically planning, coordinating, and extensively coaching and REHEARSING various
7 perjured deposition and potential contamination trial testimony towards the common financial goal,
8 and proven RICO enterprise objective of bilking Remington out of the costs of remediation and his
9 just costs and related damages incurred in recovering those just costs; Additionally, they plan to
10 charge him a few hundred thousand dollars, under the ruse of a malicious prosecution
counterclaim, punitive damages and related costs in DR140426, for Remingtons insult of standing-
11
up for WHAT IS RIGHT, and that allegation is obviously also provable by reference to
12
defendants last dozen consecutive requests for sanctions in every motion and opposition which
13
they have filed in the last several years, plus there previous frivolous DR080669 lawsuit which
14
they dropped in March 2016 due to its total lack of merit, and then on top of that they managed to
15
extort $20,000 out of Farmers Insurance in order to save the latter potentially large six-figure sums,
16 by getting Harvey Roberts out of Remingtons case, which would have taken about 150 days of
17 Roberts time. What is right above, is the obvious truism which 99% of jurors would agree with,
18 that a polluter should pay to clean-up his own mess and that should NOT be the responsibility of the
19 innocent victim, and here that means that Mathson, the RAO defendants, Gans, Lawrence et al, are
20 the bad guys and Remington is the innocent victim fighting for justice and probably his life, e.g. see
21
FN 35 for defendants culpabilitys in each part of this action.
A. Future depositions, old and new trial transcripts, and comparing old and current depositions
22
to each other over the next few years, will confirm all of the above.
23
665. Remington claims herein that his initial excellent health and finances have been
24
substantially HARMED here to date, and are expected to continue to be, by defendants, and ALL
25
those named in similar but different ways, by virtue of their actively ongoing collusive RICO and
26
common-law conspiracies involving, without limitation: Present 2017, past and planned future
27 perjuries; past and current property destroying vandalisms, thefts and sabotages of Remingtons
28 irrigation tanks and systems; past and current evidence spoliation; past criminal dumping, debris
trespasses, fraudulent concealment and coverups thereof, and related torts; contaminated
encroachments and threats against Remington, his land and all living things thereon from infectious
invasions by severe disease causing microorganisms, pathogens and many varieties of microscopic,
submicroscopic or smaller toxic particles, such as asbestos, chrysotile, E. coli, coliform bacteria and
231
1
poisonous chemical vapors and other organic and inorganic deleterious substances; the deliberate
2
dumping of there household trash on Remingtons land or allowing it to be done by their trained
3
agents, and all the other transgressions itemized above, below and especially in Volume II.
4
Remington has already been severely harmed physically by defendants contaminated hazardous
5
infectious materials, cited in part above, and at least twice almost KILLED by them, actually.
6 666. On-going fraudulent collusion. All named defendants, in both groups, have assisted-in
7 or are believed to be currently colluding with Gans TO assist at the next state trials by giving false
8 testimony to support Gans unethical, perjurious commentaries to defraud Remington as above.
9 That false testimony will need to be consistent going forward at the next state trial and in the
10 imminent federal discovery recently initiated here, which hopefully will culminate in a federal trial,
where federal perjury will have been well-established by that time. As is obvious, Gans is not a
11
named defendant in this contamination portion of the federal complaint, for a variety of reasons,
12
including CC 1714.10, its inferences and timing complexities.
13
667. Gans is named as the primary leader, president and/or criminal Godfather of the
14
RICO extortion-based racketeering enterprise, however, which has two distinct, separate, but
15
totally related and interlocked federal causes of action, presented in Volume II, for clarity and to
16 make smaller, easier to handle and bind documents. By the time of the FAC in this case, this court
17 will be well-apprised of Gans total involvement in all aspects of the collusive conspiracies alleged
18 herein, and can assist Remington in conjunction with future motions to strike, etc., related to how or
19 whether to implicate Gans in this particular pendant state claim. If the RICO case is proceeding
20 forward normally, this claim may become moot with respect to some of the environmental
21
defendants who overlap with the RICO defendants, and all of which will be subject to future
presently unknown and presently unpredictable factors. For example, the federal RICO portion of
22
this federal lawsuit can potentially be prosecuted in state court, although in a much more benign
23
and less effective and potent form, in the event that Remingtons presently active state cases or ever
24
assigned trial dates. Potentially, RICO discovery here would be interchangeable with future state
25
cases, just as Allstate discovery, which has been extensive would be applicable here as long as
26
Remington complies with rule 26 expert disclosure requirements this time. If it takes eight years for
27 each successive action to reach trial, Remington does not expect to survive that many more trials.
28 668. Defendants violated all of the following requisite elements of aiding and abetting
Gans criminal defensive conspiracies, involving suborning perjury, concealing evidence, and all of
the other civil and criminal violations of the state and federal predicate acts alleged in the entire
RICO statement, incorporated by reference herein, at this paragraph as though fully set forth here:

232
1
A. All named defendants to the varying degrees argued at (the next) trial KNEW that
2
Remington was being horribly WRONGED by Gans conspiracy, which actively committed the above
3
multiple named crimes, supported by past and future perjury, evidence tampering and manufacturing,
4
false and erroneous defendants expert testimony, as to the accurate encroaching volume, toxicity and
5
impact of the fill on Remingtons water far-below near Ridgewood, based on the dangerous dynamics
6 of the damages cased by the twin pipes, thoroughly described above. As also thoroughly explained,
7 especially in the RICO statement, GANS has led, Plotz, Brisso, McBride, the Mathsons, Ms.
8 Lawrence and ALL of the other named defendants with the overall objective and/or criminal
9 enterprise of swindling Remington out of the clean-up money he is due and was even offered in
10 August 2011, plus all of his associated collection costs, rent, value of the land itself which
defendants have stolen, and the numerous associated other damages, rightfully due him, in order
11
to remove Defendants wrongful contamination and debris, plus recover some of his other just,
12
statutorily recoverable costs, including his just demands for the other minimal, and major physical,
13
emotional and punitive damages listed and requested below. There are also certain known or inferred
14
instances were Gans ironically may have duped, tricked and/or fraudulently induced or intimidated
15
certain members of his own RICO enterprise especially, and if so, it will be their responsibility during
16 discovery to explain how they were tricked, misled, deceived, deceived, defrauded or otherwise lied
17 to themselves in order to exonerate themselves. Since Gans very successfully conned, duped, tricked
18 and otherwise deceived Remington for many years prior to his discovery of a RICO racketeering
19 enterprise, Remington would be sympathetic, understanding and receptive to such explanations
20 and/or apologies during discovery and before his FAC in this case, or his 2017 RICO amendment in
21
DR140426. Aiding and Abetting is theoretically and clearly addressed in the RICO statement.
B. All named defendants, each to the varying specific extent described above, below and
22
with more particularity in the RICO statement, also gave Mathson, RAO, and the other moving
23
defendants, substantial assistance, support and encouragement in many material respects as cited at
24
trial and depositions; and
25
C. Defendants, and ALL of their, specifically described conduct was a substantial factor in
26
causing serious harm to Remington, both past, present and future, according to proofs, and as fully
27 set forth, both below and also from approximately pages 501-513, or beyond in the RICO statement
28 of Volume II.
D. Defendants conspiracy, aiding and abetting torts and RICO criminal enterprise has
already greatly damaged Remington and cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in multiple
ways over 10 years, and it continues now.

233
1
669. Major damages still continue, with numerous upcoming deposition and expert costs
2
now expected, in at least three different ongoing cases, plus Remingtons own valuable time,
3
miscellaneous costs (including travel, food expenses and lodging in San Francisco), lost profits and
4
general damages, etc, continuing, and then greatly increasing, especially at the next trials, which
5
will be lengthy. Said above costs and additionally accruing damages, will be preceded by MANY
6 more depositions to defeat or Trump Gans only deceitful cards (i.e. his last, desperate and only
7 litigatory method) of suborning perjury in all his witnesses, obstructing justice and unethically
8 forcing them to say there is NO POLLUTION OR CONTAMINATION HERE, and essentially that
9 black is white, despite your lying eyes and all the scientific tests. Plotz, Brisso and McBride are
10 also in Gans inner leadership circle, advised him all day every day, and as his primary, active,
daily fellow, complicit, corrupt, chief co-conspirators, they deserve the same monetary fines,
11
freedom-restricting confinement, and license removal suspensions or revocation punishments
12
that Gans will ultimately receive here, if any. As above, Mathson, Gans, RAO and all of the
13
named defendants in both federal actions (environmental and RICO) are the heroes and good
14
guys, according to Gans Enterprises false narrative, and Remington is evil and BAD. Obviously,
15
Remington vehemently disputes that characterization throughout all of these file documents.
16 670. More specific factual details have been fully set forth in the RICO statement and all of
17 this federal filing, which is all incorporated as one generally consistent unit, and it is anticipated
18 and a certainty that after 1-2 years of federal discovery, we will have much more specific clarity as
19 to the criminal acts and proofs thereof for each and every defendant, and at such time we will revise
20 all of these thousand pages or so. Each named defendant, likely defendant to be potentially named
21
in the future (FAC), and the other other identified conspiratorial or associated lower-level enterprise
member is different, distinguishable, independent and cannot be accused or convicted of any crimes
22
without specific evidence, which we now have or would not have mentioned any specific name.
23
Meanwhile, the mastermind Gans, his evil right hand PLOTZ, Chairman of the Board, Brisso,
24
along with billionaire financier Lawrence and the ever constant confidant and cheerleader McBride,
25
are the primary constants, the glue that holds them all together into there one present, stinking,
26
ROTTEN whole.
27 671. Felony Vandalism, Property Destruction and Trespass caused by Mathson and his
28 Animals, (PC 594), with the known dangerous propensities (FN 32) of ravaging all roses,
Japanese Maples, Fuchsias and most of the other rare species in Remingtons gardens, as fully
explained in Special Jury Instruction CACI 46237, written by Plaintiff in 2016 for the state trial.
37. CACI 462. Strict Liability for Injury Caused by Mathson-Controlled Animals With known dangerous
Propensities-Essential Factual Elements:
234
1
Remington has more than 350 different varieties of roses (and about 5000 total), 50 varieties of
2
Japanese Maple and 15 varieties of Fuchsia, for example, PLUS 2-300Other rare and exotic, non-
3
native plants, from all over the world, almost all of which are extreme dear delicacies.
4
672. See below and extensive discussions of these issues in the 2014-15 state FAC and TAC,
5
and Volume II here, paraphrased briefly herein. Also, Randalls related vandalism, destruction of and
6 theft of Alder timber without permission while Remington was out-of-town, still causes serious
7 damages today, as does his deposited debris and continued conspiracy and retaliatory collusion with
8
Remington (R) claims that Mathson (M) kept, fed and controlled numerous tame and
9 domesticated deer on Ms property, which shares a fence with R. Mathson intentionally and
frequently led this large herd, like a deer army to repetitively vandalize Rs gardens,
10 for over 8 years, harming R economically and emotionally, and that Mathson is responsible
for that harm. Details of that unusual complaint follow and are firmly grounded in
extensive evidence, including numerous surveillance photos and John Ms own photography,
11 provided in Discovery, showing his deer feeding stations, training program, herd 10 from
Rs garden fence, and where and HOW he lets deer into and out of Rs yard at will when R is
12 away. Subsequent work and study reveals that Gans masterminded all of these activities
alleged herein, when explained by Mathson and then IMPROVED and continued under direct
13 ORDERS.
I. Introduction: People who own, keep, feed regularly or control domesticated animals, such
14 as these DEER, which have predictably dangerous natures or definite behavioral patterns are
responsible for all detriment proximately caused thereby. Mathson has also tamed about a
15 dozen local Bears, however they are mostly omitted here because they are not easily
controlled, and led like the tame deer are.
16
1. Here, the Ms carefully studied these deers established feeding tendencies for years
and easily observable rhythmic feeding patterns, and then fed them exactly what they wanted
17 and when for months with professional constructed large feeding trays as portrayed in
Court. Ms successfully executed (R alleges criminal) scheme was to feed said deer until
18 they learned and habitually NEEDED to be fed in that area at set times, and then
occasionally at feeding time he locked his back gate, as photographed and then OPENED up
19 Rs fence 8 away where a blind deer could find it, and also varied the pattern by using
any of at least three (3) different other known secret doors and entrances to Rs gardens.
20 He then herded the deer like cattle, if necessary into Rs gardens to FEAST on Rs
delectable roses and Fuchsias, etc. However, the fragrances of Rs roses, etc were enough
to LURE the deer, in videos, WITHOUT herding needed, normally.
21
2.This clever, we have argued retaliatory scheme was formulated by 2008 and M then
22 constructed a wide path through dense impenetrable brush, 30 feet of which was County land,
for 300 feet up the steep mountain to his back yard deer feeding bins and elevated trays.
23 Next he began making food trails to recruit young deer, train them to regularly ONLY eat in
his yard (or Rs gardens, when he closed his deer restaurant), and then to crawl through
holes in Rs deer fence that M deceitfully CUT, at least twice a week.SEE PHOTO #53 for
24
fence with at least 8 holes cut which were wired back and supported with vertical limbs.
25 3. Mathson had a duty NOT to damage Rs gardens either directly himself or by

directing his domesticated deer herd (army) to do his dirty work for him.
26 4. An owner of any domesticated or otherwise trained beasts, cats, dogs, deer or
horses can be held responsible by Strict Liability for the harm that their animals cause to
27 others, no matter how carefully they guard or restrain their animals.
28 5. Here, however, John M made no attempt to restrict or control said deer but like a
battlefield commander or VANDAL, he encouraged, LED and/or herded them into Rs gardens,
which required little coaxing, after M opened-up Rs mile perimeter of deer-proof fences.
6. John M usually deliberately broke-down, undermined and unhooked (Remingtons)
strong security fences, or on other days just opened his own 3 secret doors, to let the
deer clandestinely into Remingtons gardens. R can document in various ways more than 100
separate fence breaking infractions and incursions. Those fragrant rose gardens can be
smelled by deer for LONG distances and have over 10,000 trees, roses and rare bushes, most
of which are extreme delicacies for local deer.
235
1
Gans and Mathson.
2
673. One specific VANDALISM example among many: On one random, extremely dark,
3
imminently rainy November 23, 2012 night, at 8:30 PM, Plaintiff went-outside rapidly and
4
unexpectedly (obviously) to his car parked on Westgate Drive in his driveway, to get something,
5
and discovered none other than John Mathson lurking in the dark directly at his gate, attempting
6 to make a very quick limping getaway and looking-back furtively, highly suspiciously and VERY
7 anxiously. He was clearly caught in the act of some dire, prosecutable criminal mischief,
8 presumably studying the structure of and tampering with the fences adjoining Plaintiffs main gate
9 II. To establish his claim, Remington must, can or already has proven all of the
following, and THAT:
10 1.The Mathsons intentionally blazed an excellent trail presumably at Gans suggestion,with
his known support and encouragement with steps, and spread food on it repeatedly until most
11 deer in this area had visited Ms feeding areas. M lured said deer, from the forest, kept,
fed, domesticated and controlled at least twelve (12) large deer, and dozens of smaller
12 ones, Ms specialty, as small deer can crawl through narrow almost unnoticed holes,
especially underneath the fences, in holes that a big cat can barely squeeze through. Good
13 photos are available of said trail, scores of patched fence holes, and numerous deer
contentedly feeding all over Ms large back yard;
14 2. The Ms are sophisticated animal people (or lovers) and own many varieties of
animals, from multiple dogs and cats to birds. Deer fit right-in and the Ms have never
15 forgiven R for closing his gardens to the rampant, thieving deer, although they are open to
a dozen other local animal varieties. The Ms studied these local deers feeding patterns,
16 seasonally and daily and adapted their schedule to the deers in order to vandalize, damage
and HURT R to the maximum amount.
17 3. The Ms knew that these deer had the normal deer propensity and ravenous scavengers
nature or tendencies of persistently searching Remingtons mile perimeter fence, largely
18 in dense brush and wilderness areas, for openings or breaks. First Mathson trained his
deer army to eat daily and repeatedly in his yard, high up THIS mountain, until he locked
19 his gate to the feeding tray zones. Then M criminally trespassed by breaking-down,
vandalizing and otherwise opening Remingtons fences sufficiently to cause the deer to
establish a feeding pattern in Remingtons gardens, which are SUPER-delicacies to local
20 deer. Said deer DID establish daily, regular feeding patterns on this mountain, so that
when not fed every day or two by the Ms, then they would cut (Photo #54), undermine or
21 temporarily unhook the end of part of Rs fence, or open-up one of their 3 (not so)
secret doors (such as photographed in 12-15 next to Ms back gate), letting said tamed
22 deer INTO Rs gardens to ravage his deer-delicacy plants, such as roses and Fuchsias. The
Ms studied deer patterns for many years, understood exactly at what hours they want to
23 eat, and how many times per day and they controlled that deer feeding schedule;
4. Before Remingtons gardens were injured, the Mathsons knew for at least 20 years about
24 the subtleties of deer feeding patterns as R and John M had more than a dozen
conversations prior to 2008 (when the parties were good friends), focused on deer
25 problems, control issues and how they were smarter than humans as John liked to say and
must have laughed about for the next 8 years, however it was HE and his criminal mischief
26 that was smarter than R as R had impenetrable deer and bear fences since 2009. The Ms
did know and also should have known that their tamed and regularly FED (as per Ms
extensive photos) deer herd had the above dangerous, vandalistic nature or tendency, based
27
upon the above conversations, specifically focused on the evolution of Rs ever HIGHER and
more impenetrable deer barriers and fences. These serious discussions occurred entirely
28 between 2000-2007, and by 2005-6 Remington had made his + mile perimeter fences
absolutely deer and bear proof, after many years of development, trial and error as to all
parameters, such as height, gaps between wires and mostly the effective anchoring to the
ground as local deer now prefer tunneling and crawling to high jumping or going through
holes, and hard work. During the early 2000s there were much larger deer here that could,
did and liked to jump over fencing up to 12 tall x 8 WIDE! (as witnessed by R) even in
what was dark to a human. The new generation of deer are soft, smaller and lazy and
rarely jump even a 6 fence but look for where M has enabled tunnels or unraveled wires to
crawl through;
236
1
where holes are still seriously blocked by dense vegetation, and break-ins are unexpected at such a
2
prime location, but ARE AT a place where deer hang-out waiting for someone to leave the gate
3
open a small crack. The next day in daylight, some minor security fence tampering, and initial
4
loosening of chain-link fencing restraints at the gate posts was noticed, so Plaintiff arrived just in time
5
to avoid whatever substantial destructive vandalism or possibly arson crime that Mathson had started,
6 and was actually just initiating, when he was caught!
7
8
4.5 More specifically and criminally actionable with the appropriate EVIDENCE, Plaintiff
9 now has to inspect and patrol with a dog, his lengthy shared fence line with the Mathson
Defendants almost daily, rather than about monthly, because Defendants have recently and
10 continuously violated and vandalized the barrier repeatedly in 2014. That vandalism occurs
regularly by John Mathson, (as above) and is being recorded by surveillance means,
incidentally. Mathson deliberately breaks the fence down, or cuts it, in multiple places,
11 which his trained deer find easily only 2 off their feeding path, digs deep trenches next
to the fence on his side, in order to undermine it or just CUTS its ground stakes (as per
12 July 22, 2014) to enable his deer to quickly finish the job by merely squeezing through
narrow openings, which they do instantly. Mathson has also frequently ripped-out or
unraveled (to presumably cleverly avoid flagrant clipper marks) entire large sections of
13 fencing and/or started and finished substantial tunnels under said fence on steep terrain,
large enough for large deer and even 700-pound bear to quickly crawl through, without a
scratch. Photo #54 adequately portrays the result of 10 years of fence vandalisms and
14 repairs, with at hand materials in the dark, 15 stories down the treacherous mountain.
15 Mathsons clearly observed photographically revealed objectives, as explained historically

above in detail, is to encourage and ENTICE large numbers of deer to invade Plaintiffs
security perimeter and then ravage and destroy his thousands of sensitive, delicious
16 plants, most of which are deer-delicacies, many are also now unduly weak and fighting for
survival in this desert anyway, and many of the fruit trees, including exotics like lemon,
17 persimmon, cherry, peach, serviceberry and unusual plum varieties, etc. are highly
desirable to bears also. Over the years Mathsons invaders have eaten hundreds of pounds
of peaches, alone.
18
5. Remington was harmed, MANY, MANY times since 2008, especially in spring 2011-13, before
19 his enhanced security measures, as 4 different trials approached and continuously
thereafter into 2016, by multiple deliberate acts of vandalism by Mathson, and thereafter
by his tamed deer, which he let-into Rs gardens and effectively LED them in;
20
6. WHAT caused Ms acts of repetitive vandalism? Simple scrutiny, research, John Ms
21 cross-examination and Rs detailed trial chart and slide presentation shows it was based
on his GUILT for contaminating Rs land, an attempt to intimidate R into making it easier
22 to give-up than to continue fighting, ANGER and the Ms continued RETALIATION which has
been STRONGLY underway since June 2008 when Ms complaints to every governmental
organization in Humboldt County first BEGAN. Also, a simplistic knowledge of psychology
23 and the Ms neuroses, some undergoing treatment (some NOT), infers that John M is very
FRUSTRATED at playing virtually no part in his defense and he doesnt even understand most
24 of what is going-on. Hence his statement at Rs gate in December 2007 that This is now
out of my hands proved VERY prophetic. R believes that all of the above has been PROVEN
25 by a preponderance of the evidence, so this is NOT ARGUMENTATIVE BUT PROVEN FACT, however
that will be up to the jury and judge as to whether to edit this instruction and HOW. John
26 Ms pathological frustration is manifested in obvious ways such as his extreme SULLENNESS
whenever he is rarely seen for years, and the passive-aggressive manifestation of anger
and frustration involving the Agreed Fence and deer army. His courtroom demeanor prove all
27
that. R agreed 4-5 years ago to MOVE the AGREEDFENCE off Ms land where it encroaches a
few feet still along entirely worthless, unusable strips of Ms brush piles, however
28 inferentially M feels he has the right to attack and illicitly DESTROY something thatdoes
not have an absolute right to remain there, forever. R CANNOT yet remove that fence,
BECAUSE, as has been known and determined FOR YEARS, the fence is needed now for security
of several hundred thousand dollars of Rs property and cannot be reasonably moved until
AFTER MS LANDFILL IS REMEDIATED, AND REMOVED AT LEAST FROM RS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY
LINE.Further, the two involved insurance companies agreed to rebuild a high quality
fence along the border but obviously not until AFTER the clean-up of Rs land. Putting in
the new fence now would not be proper because it would get destroyed during the
remediation and have to be rebuilt twice, which is asking too much for a high-quality
237
1
674. Inferentially, John Mathson was just beginning a serious trespass, or perhaps he had
2
just completed a trespass, either through Plaintiffs unlocked gate or was caught in the act of
3
removing the attached ends of fences from the concreted gate posts, which had been disturbed, and
4
where he had previously sabotaged in 2011, at that an exact spot.
5
675. Historically, Mathson had previously cut and also unraveled Remingtons security
6 fences in that same area (and also 10 farther away in another year), immediately on either side of
7 Plaintiffs often locked main gate where some of the multiple bear-proof fences are somewhat
8 weaker, because they are reinforced (but also obscured) by a thick 20 tall hedge, such that holes
9 made by Mathson for unauthorized entry are difficult to notice, see or find, and are thus generally
10 unexpected (to be made at the same exact spot), until now. Mathson has also sabotaged Plaintiffs
$12,000 fence. Said companies will NOT build the fence TWICE, and even once now, is in
11 question. R is too busy litigating now to rebuild a fence for a few months while we await
the results here. M has nothing but time to plot, scheme and DAMAGE R and he too could
12 relocate an inexpensive fence if he needed the useless strip of land (now minimally
encroached) however he doesnt and his preference is to destroy and hurt R,retaliate, try
13 to intimidate R and make it easier to settle this than to battle here in Court, not
cooperate and resolve these issues as R attempted for the first 4 years. Now R prefers to
14 TRY this, fight it to the finish in the next 5-10 years, and collect his damages and
abatement costs, eventually either now or later.
15 7. The Ms, Gans and their RICO gang are just common vandals, nothing more or less. Thats a
simple FACT, now proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Their crime here is not just the
16 accidental act of allowing their pit bull or horse to escape and do damage to a neighbors
property or person, for which they would be responsible for all costs and damage engendered
17 thereby, under the strict liability doctrine. What they did, and continue to do, is MUCH
worse, an actual deliberate premeditated series of repetitive criminal ACTS over 8 years for
which they need to be held responsible for now, and PAY! What the Ms did here is analogous
18
to deliberately opening-up their neighbors gate or fence to allow (without any coaxing, the
animals intrinsic NATURE is well-known) their herd of pit-bulls to attack their neighbors
19 chicken house with obvious sudden and fatal results. Here, over 8 years, Ms deer killed
most of Rs weakened or young, tender plants by eating all vital runners, buds, leaves and
20 flourishing parts of the bushes, leaving hundreds of stunted roses today, and 1000 killed.
8. Objectively, the Ms are actually rabid animal activists, thinking that anything
21
they do for the poor deer or birds around here is good and any and every crime they
commit in their name is justified, as we will show at trial. They are analogous to
22 abortion clinic arsonists and murderers. They disregard the laws and are unable to work
intelligently within the system. R has presented evidence of that and it is up to this
23 jury to decide whose right and/or who is crazy. The Ms have now committed at least
40 documentable, provable acts of FELONY malicious mischief with damages over $400 per
24 occurrence. The sentence, under trespassing mischief and felony law, for EACH act, is
potentially up to one year in jail or prison and $10-50,000 fine per occurrence. R
25 intends to get a conviction there, eventually.
9. Mathsons deer herd's well-known, well-understood unusually, wild hungry nature or
26 feeding tendencies, and while being personally LED, supervised, commanded and let IN and
OUT of Rs gardens by JOHN MATHSON, were a substantial and the only factor in causing
27 Remingtons harm. Rs harm involved a series of serious economic losses, involving killed,
defoliated and crippled rare plants which are detailed-out elsewhere and added-up over 8
28 years using several methods. Also, R sustained severe emotional distress which further
warrants punitive damages for the criminal harassment, intimidation and taking advantage of
Rs age and increasing inability to properly personally monitor and maintain his fences and
garden paths. Electronics work better, however and it is sad it took so long for R to
spring-for the spending of the few hundred dollars here to END this for GOOD. Deciding what
was needed also took considerable time, but just as R faced serious criminal activity and
hundreds of individual burl thieves while in business, at 7-8 simultaneous locations,
nothing much as changed here, and one location was difficult here, until recently.

238
1
mile long fence in at least 90 other specific places, SEE PHOTOS #54 FOR ABOUT 6 MAJOR
2
REPAIRS ALONE, which days, times and manners are documented in many documents,
3
including the RICO statement, and which will be painfully developed at the trial over several
4
DAYS, for emotional and punitive damages, to see Mathsons attempted innocent looking
5
perjured reactions, to buttress our other aforementioned Deposition perjury proofs involving
6 witnesses. Perhaps a jury will interpret John Mathsons continuous efforts to drive plaintiff from
7 his property, which Remington now CANNOT leave, because his property is actually now
8 rendered entirely unsalable due to Mathsons contamination.
9 676. More seriously, that SAME November 23d night, and in association with RAOs believed
10 sponsored almost simultaneous, serious intimidating THREATS against Figas and his equipment,
by Kyle Skillings in 2011, discussed above, Mathson may also have been interrupted from personally
11
attempting to vandalize, arson (and/or study in the dark, WHAT crime he, Kishpaugh or Skillings
12
could get away with) the 85,000# contractors excavator parked only 20 inside that very gate.
13
677. Perhaps he was scouting the vulnerabilities of the excavator, planning or even
14
beginning to EXECUTE a vandalism and analyzing our then non-existent and also historically
15
mostly unnecessary (until NOW) human security measures (since enhanced) in advance for
16 Skillings and/or other unknown RAO employees now expected to do Mathsons mechanical dirty
17 work involving the slightly more sophisticated art of effective, meaningful equipment vandalism
18 and arson, as opposed to Mathsons specialty of fence vandalism. On that above night, Defendants
19 could have intended to start-up Figas excavator to do untold damages, such as knocking-down
20 Plaintiffs entire $500,000 house structure in minutes, or another arson, all of which criminal acts
21
would be trivial for a knowledgeable owner/operator to accomplish, which is presumably the main
reason why tough and incorrigible Figas justifiably very abruptly pulled his machine off the job,
22
leaving 75% of his planned and needed work unattempted, and when the work was IMPORTANT,
23
and he badly NEEDED the money to pay a large crew out of season.
24
678. Alternatively, that same night, Mathson could also have been in the act of
25
vandalizing or studying (to thoughtfully accomplish same in the future at an inconvenient time
26
such as during trial), Plaintiffs car, which Mathson was less than 2 away from when Plaintiff
27 discovered him, and from which he nearly RAN, at a super-fast (for him) 6-8 m/h limping walk.
28 No how are yous, nice evening for a walk, etc, just a quick panicked escape to avoid
detection and identification which miserably FAILED in the 500+Watt sodium vapor streetlight 30
away, which he was trying to innocently run towards, making an easy, instant positive
identification. No words were spoken that I recall, as the implications were SERIOUS, jarring and
required thoughtful consideration, and STILL do. Thus, nothing serious was actually witnessed
239
1
that night, but Mathson and Remington BOTH know he came very close to arrest and perhaps
2
JAIL, or worse, that night.
3
679. As more thoroughly described in the RICO statement, in August-September 2016, John
4
Mathson, Gans, Plotz and Miller Farms Nursery prematurely jumped-the-gun on the Farmers-
5
Harvey Roberts fence settlement by running a rope across the Pulley line stakes and excavating
6 an ILLICIT, unauthorized deep mattock-trench along that lien for unknown reasons. They also let-
7 in multiple deer, during a crucial time of seasonal weakness for certain deer delicacies, which
8 caused considerable overall damage to Remingtons gardens. However, in view of the schedules of
9 the various lawsuits, it now appears that the REAL damage here from the Mathson-Miller Farms
10 premature incursion here, will occur this winter when torrential rains on these 60 degree slopes will
cause erosion and new slides now, which if so, will be photographed and documented properly.
11
More details of this extortion of Farmers Insurance and Remington is summarized in the RICO
12
statement, specifically under mail fraud.
13
680. Numerous additional specific vandalisms, sabotaging and destruction of Remington
14
security fences occurred throughout November-December 2016 and again in January-February 23,
15
2017. Some of those were documented as they occurred during the drafting of the RICO statement,
16 however they became too numerous to individually track and discuss and essentially occurred every
17 2-3 days and probably every day but Remington was not outside to see the destruction occurring in
18 real time. Remington watches footprints carefully during the rainy season and attempts to erase
19 newly discovered footprints so that it can be determined if the property is vagrant, trespasser or
20 monster free or not, on a given day. On February 9-12, 2017 numerous deer were discovered
21
ravaging Remingtons flowering roses prior to their use on Valentines Day and for his wifes
birthday, and their continued presences anticipated because Remington was unable to reach Dylan
22
Clemans his chief security officer who brings two dogs in here at virtually any hour or day when
23
he is called to chase the deer, locate the holes and patch the fences now that Remington is not
24
physically able to do so especially after dark. Depending on, if, or when the deer are removed,
25
damages will be determined and assessed at the next trial.
26
27 681. Intentional Evidence Spoliation tort, see Cedars v. SC (1988) 18 C 4th 1, 17 for law
28 changes, however. Substantial material evidence has been spoiled, removed, sanitized, covered-up
and buried deeper over the past 8 years of litigation. Though no longer a California specific cause of
action, it is still perfectly actionable through evidentiary and/or discovery sanctions by the Court,
and that is exactly what Remington is requesting herein.

240
1
A. The hiding, altering, fabrication, or complete destruction of documents or any evidence is
2
a criminal act in most jurisdictions and may result in fines and/or incarceration for the parties who
3
engaged in the spoliation. Here, Gans, John Mathson, their hoodlum gang of criminal vandals et al,
4
spoiled, removed, altered and destroyed evidence, which in short is the other related felony called
5
evidence tampering. Remington has more than an hour of relevant video showing John Mathson
6 tampering with evidence, and has included one still version at photo # 54 showing Mathson rolling
7 asbestos pipe up the hill, dropping it over the agreed fence, and then walking it 8 feet across to his
8 locked gate where he hides it in his yard, before putting it in his ordinary garbage can, or hauls it to
9 the dump on his specialized trailer for hauling junk and debris.
10 682. Obviously, the basic theory of this spoliation inference is that when a party destroys
evidence that shows a consciousness of guilt, proves that the evidence would be incriminating and
11
unfavorable to the spoliator, and in a case like this, the court could assume the worst case scenario for
12
defendants, which is accurate in this case, and rule entirely for the plaintiff regarding what the
13
evidence actually shows or proves, and essentially accept plaintiffs statement of what the evidence
14
was and what it means, without any frivolous rebuttal from Gans. If anyone ever showed
15
consciousness of guilt it would be John Mathson in Remingtons numerous surveillance videos!
16 683. There are many federal cases which illustrate this point, e.g. Living Designs v. Dupont,
17 431 F 3d 353, (9th C. 2005), [Court allowed a RICO claim to proceed based on discovery fraud, where
18 defendants falsely claimed that evidence did not exist, which is equivalent to destroying it.
19 Destroying or refusing to disclose legitimate evidence deprived the litigation of its legitimacy and
20 was done to injure plaintiffs business, costing defendants the case].
21
684. It would only take Remington approximately one hour to present his still and extensive
video surveillance photographs, charts and related analysis to prove that defendants gravely and
22
prejudicially altered the dumpsites to minimize their visual impact to a jury or court, while
23
knowing full well that the material went 10-20 feet deep and what they were doing was not a clean-
24
up but a blatant minimization and very flagrant cover-up of their crimes.
25
685. This judge can now hear and see that evidence, see the conclusive photographs, volume
26
measurements and estimates, which prove 100% of Remingtons allegations, and evaluate all aspects
27 of the crimes and circumstances, in order to determine if Mathsons bad faith attempts to minimize
28 the crucial, material visual contamination evidence present in this VISUALLY IMPORTANT case,
prejudiced Remingtons right to a fair trial, or not. Since 99% of the visually dramatic contamination
evidence was underground anyway, removing the veneer of debris at the surface was a brilliant
criminal scheme and significant master plan by Gans, as the perfect and utterly convincing means of
prejudicing a jury against Remington and emphasizing their FALSE NARRATIVE that their 2 million
241
1
plus pound encroachment was benign and pristine. Gans bogus, false, but extremely dangerous
2
theory, because it is probably very accurate with most local, too-busy jurors, has been for years
3
that: if a jury cant see it then it doesnt exist!
4
686. Remington hereby request that this court GRANT the following evidentiary sanction in
5
the interests of balance and justice, if it would not ordinarily do so in this normal course of
6 evidentiary admissions.
7 A. That important request is to ADMIT into evidence before the federal, and/or state jury,
8 ALL REMINGTONS 2016 PHOTOSHOP TRIAL CHARTS DEPICTING THE ACTUAL
9 SUBTERRANEAN DEBRIS WHICH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED AND INFERRED BASED ON
10 THE DEPTHS AND VOUMES AND SAMPLES REMOVED TO DATE, see Volume III for some
examples. Although Remington has more than 100 of those, he has introduced a few of them here
11
as exhibits to this complaint, because they perfectly illustrate all scientifically proven aspects of
12
this case especially the massive, several million pound, subterranean contamination variable, plus
13
the invisible airborne and waterborne toxins of many varieties. Also, Remingtons expert statements
14
and test which estimate and establish the actual volume and weight of hazardous debris on the sites
15
should thereafter be accepted without debate. Since defendants fully admit and acknowledged
16 there negligence and liability in the August 2016 SOL trial, and admitted that they specifically
17 put ALL those materials on Remingtons land, there will be little if anything to do here, in the
18 contamination portion of this case, after those two facts are established. Remingtons environmental
19 experts have long proven the number of cubic yards of hazardous contaminants deposited on his
20 land by defendants, and the average cost per yard to remove it and that is the basis of the
21
remediation reimbursement cost, which Remington is requesting herein.
687. Happily, what specific hazardous debris, asphalt and asbestos pipes (individually) were
22
removed by defendants RICO soldiers, largely under the direct supervision of Gans primary field
23
operative John Mathson personally, PLUS, where, when, HOW and by what specific means that
24
was accomplished, can all now be proven with the thousand plus (1000+) annually photographed
25
still shots of the dump sites. Additionally, Remington fortunately ALSO has dozens of hours of
26
good, incriminating surveillance video showing Gans and Mathsons frequent trespassing forays
27 into the dump itself to GET, remove (Photo # 54) or diminish the incriminating objects such as
28 most asbestos pipes, and any conspicuous plastic, aluminum, rubber or other obviously out-of-place
trash in a redwood forest. John Mathson is also seen frantically gathering and then raking-up large
quantities of redwood needles in order to cover-up said large debris and hazardous materials at
crucially strategic times (as explained) with dirt, redwood needles and/or planted weeds, where said
objects were too large to smash, or reduce with a sledgehammer for total removal, or to heavy to
242
1
roll-up the mountain, drop over his the agreed fence and then make said objects disappear,
2
through a locked gate into his backyard. After stockpiling a trailer load of such spoiled evidence
3
and hazardous debris from Remingtons land, periodically he loads them onto a utility trailer,
4
conceals them with a tarp and hauls them to the Eureka dump, which records we will be
5
subpoenaing. Remington has a huge amount of still photography and surveillance video most
6 of which will be saved for impeachment at federal trial after John Mathson perjures himself
7 again, and he absolutely will, count on it.
8 688. At the proper time, after the appropriate evidentiary PROOFS which we have available
9 for trials or THIS Judge to review, we will request the appropriate severe terminal evidentiary
10 and/or Discovery sanctions, suggested above. They include, as above, without limitation: That
defendants fully admit liability; The Court or trier of fact accept 100% of our claims; That
11
Remingtons DETAILED, ACCURATE SUBTERRANEAN CHARTS (discussed above), made in
12
Photoshop be accepted into evidence; and that ALL of our specific evidence, photographs,
13
diagrams and solid geometric, statistical and calculus computations regarding the huge
14
VOLUME, weight and overall amount of hazardous asbestos and Chrysotile be accepted
15
into evidence.
16 689. That asbestos, chrysotile and about 2 million pounds of other hazardous, adverse,
17 polluted and all unwanted non-native materials were placed there initially by defendants, before the
18 lawsuits were filed and which STILL is 99.9% there, absent the minute 700-1000# hand-removed,
19 for cosmetic and prejudicial reasons38 by John Mathson, and others, just described above, and
20 exemplified in Photo #54, only one still shot from at least 150 30-second videos with thousands of
21
frames EACH!
22
23
38. By the time of trial, Remington will determine one perfect analogy which captures exactly what Gans
24 enterprise and John Mathson have done at these dumpsites to conceal their presence, toxicity, danger to public
health and their size and significance, where 99.9% of the contaminated materials are buried and almost entirely
25 below ground. Not having the perfect analogy yet Remington presents the following imperfect analogies. What
defendants have done here so far to conceal their crime was similar to: 1) Broom-sweeping a radioactive waste
26 deposit to remove some minor ugly plastic debris and conspicuous aluminum cans which cosmetically
suggested dumped debris might be present at the site; 2) Sprinkling a couple thousand pounds of redwood
27
needles over a gigantic arsenic deposit, 20 feet thick, spread over several acres, which still dissolves into all
28 rainwater and spreads vapor and dust into the air, as an enormous invisible health hazard; 3) Blowing your nose
as a dying infectious pneumonia victim and then proclaiming yourself well, non-contagious and then staggering
into a very crowded, tightly packed public event, a few hours before you die and exposing yourself to thousands
of unsuspecting people; 4) Cleaning-up your hotel room in Syria of all debris and in a possible maids or
strangers hiding in your room, and then declaring that all of Syria is Isis-free; 5) Broom sweeping a few dust
pans full of rotten wood particles from the surface of a gigantic termite-infested rotten wood block, 200 x 100
x 30 thick, which contains 10 billion termites below the surface, and then proclaiming it to be termite-free and
therefore now salable and usable as a hospital structure.
243
1
In other words, Mathson and defendants removed a minimal cosmetic amount of debris so as
2
to very drastically understate what is really there to a jury in case they VISIT the sites, which was
3
seriously requested by Remington at one time, but then withdrawn, after Gans and Mathson
4
responded with the above-described massive evidence removal project, spread over several years.
5
The State Court also DENIED said initial motion, requesting a jury site visit, on safety and possible
6 prejudice grounds, during very extensive pretrial hearings in 2016. Now however we realize there
7 were many other factors involved, most importantly probably that permitting a jury visit might let
8 Remingtons case get out of control to a victory, as apparently or inferentially arranged tacitly or
9 overtly between Judge Reinholtsen and the Mitchell firm.
10
690. SEVERE SANCTIONABLE DELIBERATE ETHICS VIOLATIONS HERE BY GANS
11
WHICH HAVE BEEN CONDONED, ACQUIESCED TO AND NOT OBJECTED TO BY
12
PLOTZ, BRISSO, KLOEPPEL, KLUCK, ET AL, FOR MANY YEARS, CCP 128.6.
13
A. Serious, and disbarring-magnitude CCP 128.6 sanctions are requested against ALL
14
Defendants presently active counsel for multiple previous and active RICO Federal ethics
15
violations, which overlap with their State Ethics and criminal violation counterparts in most
16 cases, and include: 1) Gans blatant, fraudulent plagiarism of Judge Vadas Document #93 Summary
17 Judgment ORDER, by multiple deliberate exaggerated misquotations cleverly worded and intended to
18 KILL Remingtons State causes, by mis-stating the specific findings (if any) made by Judge Vadas in
19 his dismissal of Remingtons CWA, RCRA, EPCRA and CERCLA allegations. Obviously, no federal
20 allegations were provable without any expert testimony allowed into the case, and without Remington
21
ever being examined as an expert, which he also WAS and still IS, however Judge Vadas prejudicially
and erroneously did not recognize Remington as expert in anything, nor did he attempt to examine
22
Remington on any subject.
23
691. Gans has lied repeatedly in all Courts in all his sworn documents, since 2008 but now his
24
crowning pre-eminent achievement to date is his collusion to suborn systematic supporting coached
25
perjury in 5 witnesses, led by John Mathson, the only primary speaking liar about substance, which
26
substance was diametrically and materially false. All the others (4) only swore to the existence of two
27 phantom NON-EXISTENT MEETINGS, which never happened ever, where they purportedly saw
28 Mathson talking to Remington on Mathsons land in 1998; however, NONE of the 4 colluding
supporting witnesses heard even one actual WORD spoken by Remington or Mathson or had
any clue what the parties were allegedly talking about, perhaps because said meetings and
conversations were imaginary, fabricated lies and therefore, in other words, they NEVER

244
1
HAPPENED! As explained above, although not actionable in the environmental portion of this
2
lawsuit, Gans many obstructions of justice during 2016 are all reachable under RICO and are
3
attacked under those doctrines only. Gans and all of the involved Mitchell firm attorneys are
4
named as RICO defendants only, but are not environmental defendants, for all of the reasons
5
discussed.
6 692. As will now be a major federal discovery issue, the factual truth is that Remington never
7 visited Mathsons land where the purported non-conversations allegedly occurred until at least 2004,
8 and never set foot on any part of Mathsons distant land further down the mountain until 2003. That is a
9 hard negative to prove 18 years later, against five or more pathological liars, all of whom are either
10 Mathsons best and closest friends in the world, or his wife.

A. Remington has a huge amount of pertinent evidence from 1998-2006, including thousands
11
of pages of related notes, but NONE REPORT OR DOCUMENT ANY ACTIVITIES WHICH DID
12
NOT OCCUR IN 1998. That is kind of the way all history recording works.
13
B. What was actually done by Remington then IS recorded quite thoroughly in those exact
14
weeks in 1998. Conversely, what was NOT done is NOT recorded in the daily notebooks.
15
C. AGAIN, Remington has been in the habit for the past 45-years of writing down everything
16 that he does and keeping track of all dates and business activities in hundreds of written spiral-bound
17 notebooks, but what he never learned to do was to keep track of in writing the trillions of activities,
18 meetings, trips or other events that he might have done theoretically, but did not do. In other words,
19 if its not in Remingtons business notebooks, which record all significant events to Remington for the
20 last 45+ years, then in all probability Remington did not do it. Conversely, if some event actually did
21
occur, which had any importance at all to Remington, such as a meeting with Mathson to discover that
his whole property was being ruined on the north side of the massive ravine and creek, then it was
22
Remingtons custom to take notes of that in his business records and also to discuss it with his wife.
23
Neither of those events occurred here, because the events lied to by Mathson and defendants never
24
happened. Remington had considerable evidence of that well-established and lifelong fact and habit for
25
the 2016 SOL trial, however Judge Reinholtsen refused to admit 99% of it. Therefore, Judge
26
Reinholtsen and Gans together effectively defeated Remingtons proofs of that crucial habit, effectively
27 and completely, which inferentially may have been both of their purposes, if he both are in fact
28 affiliated with the RICO enterprise, as alleged in Volume II, as a possibility an inference at this point
during discovery. In any event, negatives and events that did not occur but theoretically could have
occurred, are hard to refute, especially against five good old boys who were very obviously entirely
believable to the August 2016 local jury of similar good old boys.

245
1
693. Although, not CRUCIAL going forward, Gans coaching his witnesses into that perjury was
2
so exceptionally dishonest that Remington now intends to determinatively pursue that issue federally
3
until resolution, based on sophisticated impeachment by omission techniques being learned and applied
4
by himself or experienced trial counsel next time.
5
A. Historically, at the SOL trial, Remington weakened that block of 5 Gans suborned perjuries
6 substantially, but under trial pressures in the surprising moments Remington could not present it
7 clearly, impressively, properly and persuasively to a rather stupid, entirely improperly, appealably and
8 inadequately instructed (and EDUCATED) jury, already turned-off by many pro per trial errors, minor
9 delays, sustained objections and bumblings, unfortunately. Prejudicial evidentiary Judge Reinholtsen
10 trial decisions were the key prejudicial detriment to Remingtons truthful trial presentation, and Judge
Reinholtsen made it impossible to even impeach Skillings with his conclusive 2003 photographs
11
which Judge Reinholtsen reviewed but then refused to allow into evidence at the trial.
12
694. CCP 128.7 was the only viable method Remington understood for several years which
13
could attack Gans corruption, early-stage criminality, unlawful extortion, disingenuous schemes and
14
false evidence, as described herein and especially in the RICO complaints. Now, obviously the
15
128.7 allegations gravely pale in comparison to the RICO allegations, which are more serious and
16 probably more easily proven in a court, especially the Humboldt County Superior Court. Whereas
17 ethics violations, at least in Humboldt County currently, are of no concern, to date, to any of the
18 remaining available judges, especially Judge Reinholtsen, as they are all fighting their own serious
19 felony crimes, which would also infer probable ethics violations. After we prove one or more federal
20 criminal predicate acts by and against Gans, presumably ethics violations and loss of his license to
21
practice law will follow naturally.
695. Judge Watson heard a 128.7 complaint from Remington and ruled that they were
22
Denied, at this time, because most of them involved federal transgressions, improperly presented
23
in a state court to a state judge. He strongly inferred that if Remington came back with All state
24
allegations of similar characteristics and severity, then he would give Remington a sympathetic
25
hearing, presumably for Gans to perjuriously respond, which was the purpose of the activity, and
26
then likely have issued some sort of minor admonishment; however, he has long since retired now.
27 There are several other known to be ethical judges in Humboldt County, including Judge Miles,
28 however 5-6 of the best judges here have disqualified themselves from these cases over several
years, presumably because they cannot be unbiased against Gans, Brisso or the Mitchell firm,
because none of them know Remington, except for Judge Miles who would probably send Gans to
prison if she heard these cases.

246
1
696. Obviously, possibly the primary purpose of bringing these ethical and RICO allegations in
2
federal court is to find a judge that is not ethically challenged himself or herself and who takes ethics
3
and law violations as seriously as the drafters of those statutes. That appears to be a tall order in
4
todays diminishing ethical climate, in all branches of government. Simply put, the RICO causes of
5
action are primary here and once those are proven, established and fully adjudicated, then mere
6 128.7 penalties and punishments from the California Bar Association, such as disbarment should
7 follow automatically after the civil RICO conviction, it would appear. In other words, since Remington
8 is in Pro Per and it is very well-known truism in the system, that no one pays much attention to a pro
9 per in California, Remington merely needs one state or federal judge to essentially listen to
10 Remington, follow some small portion of his massive amount of evidence, and then implicate and
convict Gans, et al, of some (or just ONE) of these transgressions. At that time and AFTERWARDS,
11
the California Bar Association might take notice with some kind of an additional wrist slap or
12
admonishment letter, but probably not before that above actual criminal conviction on merely one
13
of these over 100 serious allegations. Although that does not necessarily sound like too high a bar to
14
hurdle, finding said above judge to take a pro per as seriously as a licensed attorney is not trivial or
15
automatic. Remington has encountered at least two such judges over his career, but they would be in a
16 distinct minority overall.
17
18 697. Violations Of Business And Professions Code Section 17,200-17,210, Et Seq.

19 Defendants and all of them, employed unfair, fraudulent competition practices under the
20 meaning of this statute against the Burl Trees land, business property and goodwill in the community,
21 and beyond, in their acts as alleged herein, by virtue of their unfair, unconscionable, deceptive and
22 corrupt acts as alleged throughout Volume I and Volume II of this complaint, fully incorporated here
at this paragraph by reference, with the RICO statement from January 2017 receiving the highest
23
priority in case of inconsistency between it and this federal complaint document, the latter of which
24
was mostly drafted earlier, from 2014-October, 2016, before this RICO extortion racketeering
25
enterprise was discovered, its significance appreciated, or understood.
26
698. Rather obviously and provably, and as very fully explained in the RICO statement, and
27
ABOVE, not everything that the Gans RICO enterprise and Mitchell Associates, Kluck, ETC do
28 against Remington in these litigations is unlawful, but the majority of their activities are at least
corrupt and unethical. As discussed above and in the RICO statement, at least 20% of what the RICO
enterprise does regarding Remington over the course of an average year is normal, and involves
scheduling, routine correspondence and drafting of court decisions, etc., under the facade of normal,

247
1
common, reasonable ordinary ethical litigation, by a legitimate law firm pretending to be such with
2
respect to Remington. They have always been extremely ruthless, rude and aggressive, but properly
3
operate lawfully under the California Code of Civil Procedure at least 20% of the time and even 30%
4
of the time, for weeks on end occasionally. Remington is not paranoid or hyper-sensitive, is no
5
Neophyte and does know VERY WELL from extensive experiences with honest and well-respected
6 lawyers, what is ordinary, reasonable, fair and ethical, or their opposite and blatantly criminal, at
7 some point. That latter criminal point was reached and crossed by Gans entire enterprise by late
8 2015 and began at least 2012 as described. Prior to that, Gans, Plotz and his RICO enterprise were
9 totally unpleasant, offensive, oppressive, tricky, unfair, very deceptive and dishonest, often
10 malicious and always unreasonable and unethical in most of their dealings, but not criminal and
definitely, permanently and provably crossing that line mostly did not occur until about 2015, with
11
the several salient exceptions noted in the RICO statement.
12
699. Specifically, defendants unlawful, unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business
13
acts and practices included, without limitation: Improperly coaching their own witnesses and
14
removing or prejudicing Remingtons; Harming, harassing and coercing Remington with
15
continuous frivolous trivia, battles over every litigation detail, including deposition scheduling as
16 to day and time, investigation days and times and hearing schedules day and times; Filing, serving,
17 and orally presenting an enormous array of knowingly false, fraudulent, frivolous and generally
18 mischaracterized facts and litigatory positions, almost without exception, at the 2016 pretrial
19 hearings, and also continuously since at least summer 2014, especially as drafted by Plotz and
20 finally edited by Gans; Orchestrated, executed, managed and carefully scheduled more than 100
21
targeted continuous vandalisms of all Burl Tree property, since 2012 alone (and also previously as
complained of in DR 080678 and DR140426), including various described security fixtures
22
(including surveillance cameras, gates and fences) over Remingtons entire property, and further
23
including his large nearly completed building structure, machinery and rented and contractors
24
equipment;
25
700. Overall, this code is best summarized by saying that everything Gans, Mathson and
26
their men do is unfair, corrupt, unethical, unjust and/or flagrantly unlawful about half the time39.
27
39. Not even the Godfather, Al Capone or a mass murderer spends 100% of their time and activity committing
28 illegal crimes. Gans and his inner circle mastermind an alleged criminal RICO racketeering enterprise as
explained throughout, but also as noted, not everything they do is illegal and much of their file documents look
to be factually correct and legitimate, however when scrutinized closely most of their intellectual points, logic
and philosophical basis for their positions are corrupt and illegitimate or at least unethical at best, but not all.
There are always exceptions to most rules and defendants here have been known to write several paragraphs in
a row without an obvious false statement or blatant mischaracterization, however that does not happen very
often. More usual would be to have 3-4 misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and/or material false
statements, or miscited cases, PER PARAGRAPH, where only their inaccurate perspective is drawn from the
248
1
Gans, his clients and their RICO associates and codefendants, etc. have all committed literally
2
thousands of fraudulent business acts and practices, directed against Remington and the Burl
3
Trees interests, within the last 3-4 years. All interactions by defendants with Remington, almost
4
without exception, were and have been from Remingtons perspective, and from that of the
5
relevant state and federal laws violated, devious, rude, fraudulent, unfair, unlawful or sometimes
6 merely intentionally tricky, deceitful and deceptive, as fully explained in the RICO statement, and
7 also herein. As explained above and throughout these documents, obviously those generalizations
8 need to be moderated and attenuated in time blocks of usually weeks or months and have varied
9 tremendously since 2007. Relationships between Remington and Mathsons attorneys have always
10 been poor or worse, but since 2011those basically bad ethical, reasonable and civil relationships
have been on a sharp further downward trend, and since about 2015 have become the overt,
11
ruthless, bullying extortive acts of a massively powerful criminal operation on its defenseless,
12
weaker and innocent prey. Superficially, this 17,200 code would appear to be at least an
13
interim alternative state remedy for many of the actions complained about in the RICO causes of
14
action, especially in the unexpected contingency that Remingtons RICO causes of action are
15
dismissed. In that situation, these 17,200 allegations supplant and blandly continue a few of the
16 RICO allegations and their possible effect, at least until a state RICO complaint is added by
17 amendment to Remingtons cases, if or when needed. Such an amendment could now be done in a
18 very short time, and will be during the next state complaint amendment motion procedures.
19 Although not studied yet, it seems clear that California law would be far inferior to these RICO
20 and related federal statutory violations herein sued under.
21
701. DAMAGES. Defendants unlawful, unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business acts and
practices harmed Remington, according to proofs, some of which are contained within these
22
documents. In actuality, Remington will not know until the time of trial what damages might be
23
granted under this allegation, because damages obtained in the other causes of action are not yet
24
known, nor has the very substantial Renz adjustment been determined or made, which will become
25
necessary at the time of trial, and prior to any verdict favorable to Remington.
26
A. Remington is presently entitled to many kinds of damages because his harm has been
27 diverse and considerable, over a very long time, however he is not entitled to double recovery in any
28 event, however he WILL be entitled to treble damages on a substantial proportion of said damages,
but not on all of them, under the RICO statutes. In the meantime, the various types of harm
Remington has experienced at over which time frames are included at the end of this complaint, and
case and the other half or 90% of the average appellate courts teaching, which might favor Remington is very
conspicuously omitted, which is an ethics violation in California and itself.
249
1
additional damages are requested in the RICO complaint, which comprises volume II of this unified
2
federal complaint. See Photo chart #57 as to whether MONEY is compensation for all this. [NOT]
3
702. Another major unknown invariable here would be Remingtons claims for damages
4
under 17,206.1 (a) (1) & (2), which are applicable to senior citizens and disabled persons, both
5
of which apply to Remington at age 75, and who also has recently been substantially disabled
6 and also frequently debilitated as described herein, by infectious diseases, hazardous conditions
7 and contagious viral and bacterial pathogens, attributable to defendants contaminated dumping on
8 his land. That is especially true in the upper regions near the source of Remington Creek which
9 is directly below Mathsons untreated raw sewage, according to Remingtons environmental and
10 medical experts. Other neighboring residents known to Remington have also been affected by said
unhealthy conditions, allegedly caused by defendants, which as above will be further investigated
11
in more detail when time permits, and when additional trial witnesses will be sought.
12
703. All of Remingtons special sense organs, abilities to balance while walking or running,
13
ability to perform manual labor, his hearing, working abilities, and all activities, recreations or
14
playing with his grandchildren, which involve proper, sensitive or any vestibular balance issues
15
(which derive from the Labyrinth in the inner ear), etc. have all been seriously negatively
16 impacted and severely degraded by the defendants toxic materials, dumped in the middle of
17 Remingtons property and gardens, as explained above.
18 704. Gans, Mathson, the Mitchell firm inter-circle management members, Lawrence, Nelson
19 and all of the other named defendants in this environmental lawsuit, or those specifically named in
20 the associated RICO lawsuit (which has some overlapping and some different defendants, per
21
Footnotes 35-36, etc), plus the additional associated, so-far un-named RICO enterprise members, all
knew, or should have known that Remington was highly susceptible to defendants corrupt and
22
unlawful conduct as complained of in these 900+ or so pages, due to his age, poor health, restricted
23
balance and mobility due to Ramsay Hunt syndrome, and the other complaints listed herein, and
24
complained of in the state litigation since March, 2014 and January, 2015. For example, as discussed
25
in the RICO statement, defendants took unfair advantage of Remingtons poor health in January-
26
March 2015 by violating stipulations and otherwise intimidating, coercing and extorting Remington
27 to reduce or omit his oral remarks opposing defendants frivolous, unfounded collateral estoppel
28 summary judgment, which simply put, damaged Remington, caused him severe pain and suffering
and forced him to attend hearings with a walker, (Photo #32 was only a week earlier) which walker
he had trouble negotiating up steps, nor could he reasonably open doors or properly articulate his oral
remarks, etc. Although obviously not federal predicate acts, that sort of persistent and continued

250
1
negative interaction between the parties is representative of the sharp additional deterioration in
2
civility between Remington and Gans RICO enterprise going into 2016.
3
705. As a result of those above maladies, disabilities and related physical problems, and
4
other related Remington conditions, including sleep disorders, working on a late-schedule, etc
5
defendants attorneys deliberately abused, antagonized, deliberately upset and made Remingtons
6 life as unpleasant as possible in order to make it easier for him to drop his lawsuits than to
7 continue fighting for justice. Over the past 10 years, plaintiffs life patterns, problems and
8 disabilities have become very well-known to Gans and the RICO leadership who thereafter
9 painfully abused those known qualities and infirmities. As a result, defendants, and especially their
10 sighted attorneys, plus John Mathson and what he occasionally accompanies them, always have
seemed to laugh, joke and otherwise take significant overt pleasure in abusing Remington further,
11
and they obviously still enjoy that today. In that specific regard, and as discussed with great
12
particularity in the RICO statement under extortion, defendants Gans, Plotz and John Mathson also
13
frequently attempt to intimidate, demean and extort Remington further by smiling and laughing
14
about among themselves, clearly at Remingtons expense, on the several occasions described
15
during these processes, and as recently as the February 17, 2017 DR080678 hearing. As a result of
16 the above, and the other substantial abuse foisted upon Remington, only a small percentage of
17 which is complained of in the RICO statement, Remington suffered actual, significant and
18 substantial physical, emotional and economic damage, as explained herein and at the next trial,
19 resulting from defendants complained of conduct.
20 706. Accordingly, since defendants have exhibited malice, deceit and practiced nonstop
21
oppressive behavior for many years, Remington requests punitive damages from the trier of fact
according to proofs, PLUS different, non-duplicative treble damages where reasonable and
22
appropriate, under the many complex RICO related statutes. However, Remington is aware that
23
under the applicable RICO US Supreme Court precedent law, substantial punitive damages may be
24
considered equivalent to treble damages, so according to the facts, the damage subtotals and the
25
specific dollar amounts for each, often only one or the other may be granted, so that any recovery
26
would be fair, reasonable, just, NOT usurious, and no more.
27
28 707. Tortious and Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, CACI

2201, against Jeff Nelson, and any other RICO Enterprise Associates that are proven to
be involved during federal RICO discovery, who could then be added as direct
defendants to this portion of the complaint at the time of the FAC.

251
1
A. As plaintiff has described with great particularity in Volume II of this complaint, especially
2
at RICO statement pages 187-205 (A summary of the RICO allegations against Jeff Nelson,
3
incorporated herein by reference), and elsewhere, Nelson, reportedly under the influence of the RICO
4
enterprise, (but irrespective of it, with regards to this pendant state allegation), intentionally interfered
5
with the contract between SHN, Aveggio and Remington. SHN and their attorneys have the contract
6 and are very familiar with all details of the breach, including the blatant lack of any valid reasons from
7 Nelson whatsoever, for said breach, so far in the record, which direct record to date comprises a file of
8 (only) about 30-40 pages. Specifically:
9 708. A short, cursory, inadequate and incomplete written contract dated January 17, 2011 exists
10 between Remington and SHNs principal environmental expert at that time, John Aveggio. Said
contract was substantially augmented and fully stopped as to its meaning by a lengthy, clear and
11
obvious course of conduct between SHN and Remington, comprising at least one year of verbal
12
conversations, unambiguous and entirely conclusive understandings, written documents and
13
memorandums with unmistakable implications and obvious meetings, numerous additional prior
14
communications, investigations and agreements which occurred prior to the contract being signed,
15
which was why Aveggios abbreviated, simplistic written contract did not need any complex detail.
16 709. By, and actually long before January 2011, Remington and SHN had a long, well-known,
17 well-established between ourselves, and very obvious written course of conduct, comprising more
18 than 1000 pages of documents and obvious understandings of what we were doing and why, which
19 was obviously all aimed 100% at SHNs continued gathering of defensible scientific and
20 information so that we could prevail at a jury trial, or hopefully settle earlier as originally occurred in
21
August 2011 after Aveggios final testing. Nothing else was ever contemplated or considered in our
relationship from the first moment that we met. Aveggio was going to guide and shepherd Remington
22
to, through and beyond a trial, as needed or until these contamination allegations were resolved some
23
other way. Our objectives were clear and the only way our contractual and related understandings
24
could ever be breached would be by Remingtons nonpayment of SHNs billings for their reasonable
25
services, which never occurred.
26
710. A very clear, trackable series of dozens of agreements, notes, letters, emails and
27 other very clear understandings and absolutely complete meetings of the minds over at least
28 seven (7) months exist between Remington, Aveggio and SHN, which were never written into the
short, simple contract between two friends, because they were not needed, and which included,
without limitation: Consulting services as needed with respect to how to conduct the litigation;
numerous site investigations which included volume computations and assessments, analysis of what
contaminated materials existed on the sites, and where, from what source and how we had determined
252
1
that; Numerous anecdotal, visual and odor studies of the entire area, unfortunately never reflected in
2
the testing record but were a very prominent part of our trial testimony strategy for Aveggio; scientific
3
site analysis of where to test, what the test for and why; how all of our testing tied-into the overall site
4
topography and geology and what our future tests were going to look for, where and why; Three
5
different sets of actual scientific borings, water tests and/or other testing types of tests, including the
6 2010 asbestos tests; Numerous pretrial documents including multiple drafts, corrections or additions to
7 every declaration, letter to investigative bodies, to defendants, to the County Health Department and
8 very extensive preparations for two lengthy comprehensive depositions, both of which were almost
9 impossible to schedule and required dozens of hours of consultations and communications to set up,
10 plus multiple different dates times and reschedulings.

711. Writing-in the additional 5-10 pages of meticulous legalese detail regarding our fully-
11
expressed, tacit and professionally understood, reasonable Remingtons expectations with regard to
12
what Aveggios job and roll towards the preparation of his trial testimony would have been an insult
13
back in 2010-11. Aveggio was planning and running Remingtons entire trial strategy, which was
14
what he was hired to do, and because we absolutely trusted each other implicitly and always had
15
perfect rapport, we never needed to make a lot of promises and representations about what we knew
16 was the battle plan40. Writing anymore into a contract wouldve been an insult to our relationship and
17 would have been like a father or mother writing in all the contract jewel expectations they intended to
18 fulfill for their child, most of which is fully assumed by all reasonable parents and children and does
19 not need to be written up as a legal contract, and that is the primary reason why SHNs contract was so
20 bland and simplistic, unless Nelson had ulterior motives all along, as is now inferred. Mr. Aveggio
21
had been to contamination trials and pretrial depositions and related procedures, whereas Remington
had NOT. Remington had plenty of experience with environmental experts preparing for trial, but it
22
was limited experience compared to SHN, and hence Remington reasonably relied entirely on SHNs
23
plans for gathering and presenting all of our trial evidence, and also on that pitifully minimalistic
24
contract which did not fully set-forth what Aveggio and Remington had contracted to do or for how
25
long. If a parent has a contract with a child, then what is its duration? 18 years or longer? Here,
26
reaching the age of 18 or 21 years old would be analogous to getting to trial, which in the instant case
27 was a lot less years than 18-21. Nothing that Aveggio and Remington ever did was not directly related
28 directly and very specifically towards going to trial, getting there, and then presenting evidence
there at trial, in order to WIN this just case against these evil defendants. What was involved in
40.Very obviously when a litigation expert is hired to plan and develop trial strategy it is no different than
when two armies face each other on a battlefield. A written contract is not needed from each soldier to
know that the agreement is to fight until the battle is over at a minimum and preferably until the war is
over
253
1
Getting to trial was absolutely well-known to BOTH Remington and Aveggio, and involved
2
testing, writing declarations, opposing summary judgment motions and then getting well-prepared
3
for depositions, which are required under California law, before you can testify at trial. WE both knew
4
that very well and did not have to articulate or write it into a contract, however when this case gets to
5
trial, each and every one of these above principles was fully articulated or inferred and set fourth in
6 said above thousand plus pages of communications between Remington and Aveggio, and also
7 in Remingtons several hundred pages of related file notes and business notebooks. It may take
8 some time and at least two weeks of trial time to present all this written material to a jury, but we will
9 absolutely do so, preferably during the RICO trial, and prevail on this count without much problem in
10 one forum or another.

712. In short, there never was any doubt whatsoever between Remington and SHN that a
11
litigation services contract meant only one thing, which was providing environmental expert
12
testimony up until and through a jury trial, plus through all appeals or additional trials if needed.
13
Obviously, there is always the hope that being so well-prepared before trial will cause the other side to
14
decide that going to trial was futile. Since all that was so obvious to the signatories to the contract and
15
had been discussed endlessly and prepared for thoroughly and for at least six months prior to the
16 contract, spelling out all of the trial testimony duties were irrelevant, not foreseeably needed by
17 anyone, or until 2014-15 when Gans enterprise caused Nelson to take his irrational, shocking, horribly
18 prejudicial, gravely damaging, potentially financially ruinous to Remington, and still entirely
19 inexplicable actions.
20 713. Aveggios FILE, provided to Remington by Nelson, had a rather lengthy compilation of all
21
Remington and Aveggios written communications, including his typed-legal documents, multiple
declaration drafts, testing results, final declaration and photographic file, which probably summarizes
22
perhaps 50-60% of what SHN did in these cases. Said file does not fully detail everything that he and
23
Remington SAID and did here on site, discussed on the phone, discussed on the sites, as recorded in
24
Remingtons detailed contemporary notes and business notebooks, or did in these litigations, with
25
regards to deposition and trial preparation. In fact, at least 75% of our communications were secret,
26
not written and that was because we knew, as originally suggested by and based upon Aveggios
27 substantial experience and always excellent and exemplary advice, that any written document was
28 discoverable, therefore generally undesirable because it would need to be defended at depositions and
trial. Therefore, from the very beginning, about 80-90% of our significant and material
communications, involving specific trial preparations, specific testing plans and objectives, etc.,
occurred verbally, mostly by phone and phone message, for the exact reason that we did not want all
of our trial strategy, preparations and plans in general revealed to the deceitful and known to be
254
1
disingenuous Gans, even as early as 2010. All of the above strategy was exclusively Aveggios idea
2
because Remington was far more nave than him in 2010. In other words, Remingtons business
3
notebooks, files and extensive detailed mental recall of all our conversations, communications and
4
other interactions with SHNs Aveggio and Foget is our best evidence, and is the only recorded or
5
recalled complete and conclusive evidence that relates to Aveggio, SHN and what their true, and
6 ultimate purposes were in these lawsuits. Nelson certainly has no idea what was going on in 2011 or
7 since, and what Aveggio explained to him about our work together was minimal, unimportant and
8 obviously very incomplete, and Aveggio did mention the name of Nelson several times, which gave
9 Remington a good idea of what his function and involvement in our contract was, which is simply put,
10 very minimal and very immaterial. Aveggio was extremely independent and autonomous and he did
not need Nelsons permission to do much of anything. Nelson will gradually learn over the next few
11
years that his superficial and overly simplistic contract was not a full expression of our multiple oral
12
contracts, agreements, estopped conduct and objectives and crystal-clear, unmistakable understandings
13
which occurred both and largely before that writing. The written contract appears to merely have been
14
a promise to pay SHN the amounts due at the hourly rate cited, and actually nothing more. The actual
15
work performed by SHN for Remington was based on friendly agreements between the parties, and
16 was mostly never written because under the afore-described circumstances, did not require any
17 committing to a writing, at least not until after Nelsons unwarranted and unreasonable breach.
18 However, since he was not a signatory to the contract he really has no idea what it was intended to
19 accomplish, and his self-serving frivolous interpretation of it today is unavailing and wrong, and is
20 obviously merely a crude attempt to avoid damages, and a further attempt to continue to follow Gans
21
corrupt RICO orders. Obviously, had Aveggio lived, these cases wouldve been over many years ago
and Foget would never have become involved and Nelson would never have breached our contract.
22
Unfortunately we did not foresee Aveggios untimely death, so most of his work actually done for
23
Remington, and what was foreseen into the future to get us to and through trial, was not committed to
24
the written document, nor did it mean to be under ordinary reasonable business relationships in
25
Eureka, which Remington has been involved in at least 1000 such agreements without ever a lawsuit
26
of this nature. No prior breaches of contract in probably 5000 previous ordinary oral and written
27 agreements and contracts and no lawsuits in the business world at all that are immediately recallable,
28 except for the Rick case, which was not an ordinary business dealing with an ordinary business
person.
714. Mike Foget, his able replacement, also spent dozens of hours communicating and
meeting with Remington about these lawsuits and also had a substantial file, which SHN has not yet
released to Remington, so we will discover it going forward. All comments made above in relation to
255
1
Aveggio, are also similarly applicable to Foget, but on a much smaller scale and over a shorter period
2
of time. However, importantly there never was any doubt in Fogets mind why he was up here either
3
studying the contaminated dumps, and attempting to understand what Aveggio DID and understanding
4
what Aveggio was planning to do next to prepare himself for the first trial. Foget was here for the
5
better part of three (3) hours preparing for trial which could have been as little as only a month away,
6 and all we talked about was whether any more tests were needed FOR TRIAL, what those might be if
7 so, and how Foget could best fully learn and memorize Aveggios deposition testimony because that
8 was the sole focus of our entire jury trial preparation. Everything was covered by Gans in his
9 second deposition of Aveggio on July 1, 2011, and that was all we needed for our trial preparations.
10 Foget and Remington knew that very precisely in summer 2012 when we met and we still knew it in
our various phone communications every few months thereafter, and until Nelsons summary breach
11
of contract, as described in complained.
12
715. Nelson knew very generally about said above contract with his most trusted environmental
13
principal, and is known to have discussed it at least once with John Aveggio before the time of his
14
untimely death in January 2012. Nelson, however had no real control over Aveggios activities,
15
because he pretty much did work that he wanted to do. Similarly, Nelson had no control, say or veto
16 power about said contract, and similarly no interest or control over either Aveggios or Fogets trial
17 testimony; and, inferentially Nelson never got into any of the details of his work with Remington,
18 because he did not know anything about it, was not interested in it and he knew that Aveggio was very
19 interested in providing environmental expert trial testimony and that he was a super-expert therein.
20 Aveggio mentioned the name Nelson in our conversations a couple of times, as to him working
21
there, various references to their interactions at SHN and discussing various aspects of our work with
Nelson. In retrospect, there is a real issue as to how long Aveggio would have remained at SHN, since
22
VERY clearly the latter needed him more than Aveggio needed them, and Aveggio was definitely
23
worth more than he was being paid, and could have realized that rather easily in several different
24
ways. It was clear to Remington, thinking back about our conversations and the frequent mentions of
25
the word Nelson, that in fact Nelson and SHN were aware of our contract and were definitely fully-
26
on-board with all aspects of it. It now appears that Nelson was Aveggios boss, in some things, but
27 NOT ALL. With regards to Aveggios numerous other work activities all over California, Nelson may
28 have been involved with that. However, today, without studying the contemporary records, Remington
does not recall now that Nelson was necessary in regards to approving anything that we were doing,
because Aveggio was independent and inferentially, it appeared to Remington that he was essentially
an equal at SHN, and probably in direct line for Nelsons job at some point. Nelson knew a little bit
about what Aveggio was doing here, so they apparently discussed it, and to the extent Nelson was
256
1
needed to approve anything, he was fully on-board, but rather obviously Aveggio was very
2
independent and from Remingtons perspective and information, Aveggio never needed Nelsons
3
blessing or permission for anything.
4
716. Aveggio was vastly technically superior to Nelson, in terms of the contamination work
5
here, because Aveggio was a highly educated technical engineer with vastly more relevant
6 environmental experience than Nelson had, and so Nelsons qualifications or substantive inputs, if
7 any, were never discussed. Nelson acknowledged as much, in August 2014 when we talked, saying
8 in essence that he did not have the background, education interest or experience to replace Aveggio
9 and hence Foget was our only alternative, but a good one. At a trial of this dispute, will have to get
10 into whether Nelson and Aveggio her friends, enemies, jealous of each other, or what; because, as
an expert engineer with experience in all of these areas of endeavor which SHN delves into, it is
11
obvious to Remington that Aveggio was a far more valuable employee an expert than Nelson, but
12
whether Nelson is an expert and amiable general manager is presently unknown, however theres
13
no doubt that Aveggio was much more personable, but perhaps he was more interested in science
14
than in managing a bunch of surveyors and technicians, and presumably was most valuable in the
15
functions that he excellently performed, all over California.
16 717. Only after Aveggios death did various conversations arise with Foget and others at SHN as
17 to who could become Remingtons next trial expert, with respect to what was going to be done next,
18 when, why, as well as what Nelson was willing to do or pay for with respect to replacing Aveggio,
19 with a qualified expert that was brought up to speed by some combination of Remington and SHN.
20 A. Foget had been mentioned, once or twice by Aveggio when he was alive, as an able and
21
eager supplement, or possible replacement, if need be, when it appeared that some replacement might
be necessary in Remingtons last phone conversations with Aveggio in late 2011-12.
22
B. Remington knew that Foget was qualified and wanted to be Remingtons environmental
23
trial expert, as early as January 2012, but was overall to emotionally upset and otherwise occupied to
24
contact SHN about it at all until approximately July 2012, after people that gotten over their shock and
25
grief somewhat.
26
718. In any case, when Remington eventually did call SHN, some responsible manager other
27 than Nelson automatically designated him for this case, and it had obviously already been decided four
28 months that Foget would take over all of Aveggios cases and prosecute them until completion.
719. That was the general situation for many months beginning in summer 2012, when Foget
visited and billed Remington for 4-5 hours of work, and that involvement and informal oral extension
of the written and oral contracts with Aveggio never ended at all, from either side, and especially not

257
1
from Remington side because he desperately needed Foget and SHN for, and through, several
2
scheduled and then canceled state and federal trial dates.
3
720. The contract continued on fully in force with periodic updates largely by phone message,
4
plus at least two calls to Foget, without ever any return call or letter ending or breaching our contract,
5
so Remington naturally assumed it was still lawfully in force as contemplated by Aveggio, Nelson,
6 Foget and Remington, for years.
7 721. Our valid contract was still in force, until Remington suddenly desperately needed Foget to
8 begin testifying, testing, consulting and doing a variety of related litigation support activities, all of
9 which were contemplated by the contract and the prior estopped clear course of pretrial events and
10 activities and in-trial testimony, exhibits, strategy, charts and division of labor as to expertise, between
Remington, SHN personnel, Hoyos, Ferriman, Gwinn and several others, which Aveggio and
11
Remington had carefully planned for, prior to two different 2011 trial dates which were eventually
12
canceled or postponed. Whether Nelson was trying to extort more money out of Remington under this
13
litigation services contract than was written into it, is a possibility to be discovered; however, much
14
more likely is the reported connection between the RICO enterprise to Nelson and SHN as described
15
in the RICO statement.
16 722. Jeff Nelson intentionally interfered with and then fully breached the contract between SHN
17 and Remington, by unlawful and actionable unilateral cancellation, which contract was specifically
18 intended to provide any and all needed environmental testing and expert consultant witness and
19 testifying services to Remington prior to trial, during trial and beyond trial through appeals and
20 additional trials, which in this instance there were at least four (4) different active cases and known
21
potential or likely trials involved from the time of SHNs initial involvement to its disingenuous,
outrageous and corrupt dis-involvement.
22
723. As fully reiterated above, in this somewhat detailed 2017 final edit, which supersedes the
23
RICO statement in the event of any inconsistencies, said SHN litigation support services commitments
24
were intended to assist Remington to get to and through his contamination trials, and for absolutely no
25
other possible purpose, as a jury will undoubtably easily grasp. Said trial preparations were made by
26
Remington and SHN over several years, and SHN was always fully and timely compensated by
27 Remington from large expenditures of Burl Tree money spent, vast expenditures of Remingtons
28 valuable personal time, which now is not only entirely wasted, but is taking another few hundred hours
to deal with this contract breach. The hours spent by Remington with SHN have always been worth at
least triple what he paid SHN for the totality of SHN services he received, to the extent that
Remingtons time in that regard can be monetarily compensated for at all. Additionally, for every hour
that Aveggio or Foget spent on these cases, writing, testing or investigating these sites, Remington
258
1
spent at least 3-5 times as many hours preparing for, planning and then writing up all results into at
2
least a dozen motions and oppositions which encompassed the SHN work in some regard. In other
3
words, the preparation and use of the SHN work in litigation was a huge time and money expense,
4
which Nelson has now wasted, with very damaging results to Remington and the Burl Tree at this
5
point. Remingtons time today may not be worth the several hundred dollars per hour it was once
6 worth while locating, logging, hauling, milling and selling many millions of dollars of Burl, however
7 it is still worth a lot, and what value a jury would attach to it will be a very time-consuming issue to
8 address at trial.
9 724. Rather obviously, said above contract was not cancelable prematurely, before any
10 trials or without some egregious provocation, such as nonpayment or other material disagreements,
and Nelsons cancellation is believed to be a corrupt RICO enterprise act as alleged in Volume
11
II, at length. Nelson had no direct provocation from Remington whatsoever, and as a result of his
12
improper and unlawful actions described, Remington was gravely damaged in numerous ways, and
13
continues to be HARMED, in an amount as will be proven at trial, and which increases every year,
14
overall. Remington believes overall that the jury will understand the situation and be sympathetic to
15
Remingtons damages and be outraged by the callous, unconscionable and unnecessary contract
16 breach perpetuated by Nelson for no expressed, valid reasons, other than, without limitation: He
17 doesnt like Remington; inferentially must believe that Foget can make more money working for
18 Gans and the Mitchell firm in the future; doesnt like litigation support; and, obviously just
19 abruptly decided he didnt like our written contract either, and assume that his great financial,
20 intellectual and management power could easily bully Remington, extort and intimidate him, and
21
quickly drive them away, and then get his attorney to write Remington a nasty letter to induce him
into doing nothing about the contract breach. Those non-reasons, plus the extremely odd-fact of
22
walking-away from an easy additional 20-$30,000 of trial fees for Foget, who was not worth
23
anything like that in his normal work, smacks-of and strongly infers the corrupt coercion or
24
otherwise improper influence from Gans enterprise, which as alluded to was originally suggested by
25
a knowledgeable Remington witness, plus an understanding of the context of, the totality of, an
26
extreme unlawful ruthlessness from these corrupt, interlocking criminal conspiracies, in this small
27 town where there are many unexpected interrelationships.
28 725. HARM. It was probably not Nelsons fault that Aveggio died prematurely, although the
nature of their relationship is presently unknown to Remington. However, Aveggio was ably,
seamlessly and immediately replaced by Foget, with no complaint from anyone. Foget thereafter,
enthusiastically studied and worked with Remington with great motivation and excitement, in order to
try to learn everything that Aveggio did and knew and to otherwise prepare for his depositions,
259
1
declarations and extended trial testimony which would have lasted at least a week. And also seemed
2
that Fogets motivation went somewhat beyond all that and may have been a desire or attempt to
3
complete Aveggios work in a proper and respectful manner, to honor his memory in effect and overall
4
toPreserve and perpetuate the integrity of SHN and everything that Aveggio had stood for, which was
5
all hundred and 110% GOOD or actually fantastic. Ultimately, it was the summary withdrawal of
6 Foget, which was apparently ordered by Nelson, without reason or provocation which gravely
7 damaged Remington financially and emotionally as described throughout all of these documents.
8 726. It will take extensive discovery, especially comprehensive depositions of Nelson, Foget and
9 several others, under the RICO causes of action to determine what caused Nelson specifically to act
10 suddenly and unlawfully as he did. Whether it was improper influence by Gans, extortion,
intimidation, coercion, bribery or perhaps the promise of future wealth and hundreds of thousands of
11
dollars of business over the next 10 years with the Mitchell firm, or something else, we just dont
12
fully yet know. The present facts are rather enigmatic and dont make sense, implying that there is a lot
13
that we dont yet know. Meanwhile Remingtons total harm cannot yet be fully assessed but at a
14
minimum it is at least $40,000 presently in lost wages, profits and monetary damages alone, as
15
explained above, plus at least $50,000 in emotional damages, and at least six-figure punitive damages,
16 according to proofs at trial when all timing, facts and causes are understood by the jury, as well as
17 what the outcome of Remingtons contamination suits are. For example, if Remington loses these
18 simple contamination cases where liability has been admitted since 2006, and then is hit (as now
19 PROMISED by Gans and Plotz) with corrupt, frivolous malicious prosecution, harassment and
20 potential punitive damages awards from Gans RICO enterprise, and eventually unjustly loses several
21
hundred thousand dollars himself, then Remington would and WILL hold Nelson FULLY responsible
for all of that, multiplied by three, under RICO. Further in that regard, Gans enterprise has already
22
hit and sued Remington in DR140426 for malicious prosecution, harassment, punitive damages if
23
recoverable, and as many other frivolous damages as they can come up with, BUT if that frivolous,
24
BOGUS cross-complaint holds-up and surprisingly prevails over Remingtons special motion to
25
strike, been huge additional damages would be automatically ascribed to Nelson and SHN.
26
Remingtons special motion to strike defendants malicious prosecution cross-complaint is ostensibly
27 guaranteed to succeed, under the obvious underlying facts of the federal case, as definitively and
28 conclusively established by one professional attorney, one federal judge and even one less-than-neutral
state judge has also already denied that same malicious prosecution count in DR080678, however in
this Humboldt County Superior Court system, you never know for sure what is going to happen.
Therefore, this attempt by Gans enterprise is doomed to failure as an obvious act of further
harassment and extortion. Although it will fail, that does not get Nelson off the hook, because the
260
1
enterprise never gives-up, and will always come back with additional frivolous allegations, until some
2
of them windup in prison, which frivolous and false allegations are likely to be directly copied from
3
the aforementioned DR 140426 allegations and perpetuated indefinitely, so even if defeated now the
4
enterprises fraudulent extortive allegations will likely never die here.
5
727. There can be no doubt in anyones mind that Nelsons conduct was the only factor in
6 causing Remingtons harm alleged herein, which simply put was SHNs withdrawal of their litigation
7 support by Foget, which at that point was only mere weeks before a trial, without any Remington
8 provocation, whatsoever, and as explained was gravely and possibly terminally prejudicial to
9 Remingtons several still ongoing contamination cases. Exactly WHAT Insidious influence from Gans
10 RICO enterprise occurred, and when are still major facts to uncover, but in any case do not excuse
Nelsons egregious breach of contract.
11
12
X. CONCLUSIONS, and reiteration.
13
728. John Mathsons continued weekly costly vandalisms of ALL Remingtons fences and
14
gardens are a continuation of a calculated nearly TEN (10) YEAR INTIMIDATION AND
15
EXTORTION RETALIATORY BATTLE CAMPAIGN, WHICH NOW HAS FULLY
16 MORPHED INTO A CRIMINAL RICO ENTERPRISE. That overt WAR preemptively
17 launched by these younger and stronger defendants as explained, has recently become too onerous,
18 ruthless, stupid, costly, stressful and painful for Remington to stubbornly and heroically keep
19 fighting every few days until his death. Today, Gans, Mathson and their soldiers constantly fight
20 nearly every day all along Remingtons 330 northern border and longer western fence line, which
21
Western fence is about 150 below Remingtons offices at the bottom of the mountain, an arduous
to reach to patch defendants serial extortive vandalisms. However, when Remington becomes too
22
old to protect his property and hell hire someone else to patrol the fences daily.
23
729. Defendants, led by the deceitful, corrupt and unethical Gans (and his young apprentice
24
attorney Plotz, co-conspirators Brisso, Esq. and McBride, etc.) have now desperately dropped ALL
25
TRUTHFUL facts from their illicit defense and embarked on a collusive perjurious journey to
26
destroy Remington entirely, at the recent 2016 SOL trial. Since they were WRONG, guilty, had
27 corrupt RICO objectives to fulfill, but had no facts or evidence, Gans wrote a false script for 5 of
28 them and tricked an impatient, improperly instructed jury with that deceit in blatant multiple
perjury. However, Remington does not believe such a LIE-BASED defense, sustained by about a
dozen, collusive, lying and bribed witnesses, can possibly remain factually consistent for long, and
therefore Remington intends to destroy that entire flimsy, foundation-less house of cards with
smart cross-examination and with auxiliary trial counsel NEXT TIME to avoid any further
261
1
surprise, bumbling and other deleterious pro per influences on a jury. A big city jury is also
2
expected to be much closer to actually being Remingtons peers in the next trials.
3
730. Eventually, Remington will get this right as the contamination on the ground isnt going
4
anywhere very FAR, except further downwards, and lower onto Remingtons property and into the
5
swamp, and California watercourses. Gans, Plotz, Mathson, Kluck, Nelson, Lawrence, et al are
6 probably NOT SMART OR DETERMINED ENOUGH, for another 10 years, to win a complex
7 case like this solely on trickery, perjury, DECEPTION, FALSE FACTS, deceit, intimidation,
8 attempted extortion of Remington and multiple criminal acts, unless they KILL or totally
9 incapacitate Plaintiff, which possibility is now being prepared for. Having a photographic record
10 of same may not prevent violence, but it will certainly assist in bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Defendants may have unlimited funding, and an abundance of hate from Mathson, Skillings and
11
their immediate associates, to destroy Remington with, however their cause is ultimately unjust
12
and all members of the enterprise understand that, and have even testified that they were the ones
13
that trespassed upon and contaminated Remingtons property. One might think that since
14
defendants know that they are ultimately guilty here and should just stop fighting and clean up
15
their mess, whether that is easy or hard, and eventually perhaps the deep inner knowledge of their
16 unjust cause and retaliatory extortion of Remington, will weaken their resolve and determination
17 eventually.
18 731. Defendants 30-40 witnesses and 16 or so named-Defendants (in both aspects of this
19 case), which numbers change weekly, will NEVER be able to keep all Gans lies, and their own
20 perjury in 2016, straight for very long and eventually will get it backwards, and hence accurately.
21
As explained elsewhere, John Mathson, Gans primary perjurer-in-chief, did exactly that in
August 2016 and at one point did accidentally blurt out the truth. He got tired, after about an
22
hour of false testimony on the witness stand, during his perjured testimony in August 2016, and
23
accidentally and to the great horror of Gans began telling the truth briefly on the stenographic
24
record, which Remington has, before Gans and the court shut-him-down and adjourned for the day.
25
One thing now is certain and that is that Gans can no longer sleep-easy knowing that his Star
26
perjurer-in-chief cannot be depended upon to maintain Gans false perjurious script for very long
27 on any given day, and eventually he will sink himself, either in a deposition or trial, and take Gans
28 and a bunch of the others with him. All presently named RICO defendants should get a copy of
that 16 or so pages of trial transcript to see just how tenuous their hold on freedom really is. The
criminal authorities, whichever or whenever they get involved here, will additionally have plenty
more to HANG the present 12 RICO conspirators with, plus the additional ones named in this
environmental suit, if Gans or Olson do put-out a hit of some sort on Remington, presumably to
262
1
SKILLINGS the REAL physically violent threat, probably, or possibly to one of the members of
2
Mathsons Westgate gang that needs a few more thousand dollars. See RICO statement for much
3
more discussion and details along these lines.
4
732. Will Gans, PLOTZ and Lawrence, et al resort to killing someone to win, at ANY
5
AND ALL COSTS, after already conclusively proving they are all entirely without scruples,
6 values, ethical limits and hence are willing to coordinate, collude, conspire and coach the worst
7 possible perjury and CRIMES? That is now the question of most interest to Remington certainly.
8 Probably THE PRESS in media, imminently, will also find some interest in this insidious story.
9 Obviously, the County DA now, the FBI, and/or US attorneys office, will have some kind of
10 interest in this unusual RICO enterprise. However, Remington has been reliably informed that
Brisso still controls the Humboldt County District Attorneys office and local state court system,
11
by association and fear, where he has been acting County Counsel for years. Therefore, based
12
on that information and its obvious inferences, Remington will consult with the local DA and
13
hand them a copy of all these documents, but not expect much after that. Additionally, as
14
reported further in the RICO statement, the county district attorney was obviously controlled by
15
Brisso in summer 2016 when they essentially made it impossible for Remingtons star witness
16 Maje Hoyos to testify as a trial witness by establishing so many high cost, exorbitant advance
17 witness fees and other onerous and illegitimate permission hoops that Remington did not even
18 attempt to use her in 2016. If Brisso can block Remingtons star County Health Department
19 witness from testifying, when he is not even currently working in the District Attorneys Office, it
20 is obvious that his power and control can easily and quickly prevent any meaningful investigation
21
of these RICO allegations from moving forward.
733. By obviously deliberate, calculated, vicious battle design, Defendants continue to try
22
and make Remington, Figas and all Remingtons experts and witnesses AFRAID, by the variety of
23
extortive means described, such as Maje Hoyos, David Tidwell, Russ Bianca and Mark Johnson,
24
due to Paul Brissos influence through Melissa Martel, and the other described influences on the
25
other witnesses.
26
A. Defendants have also successfully extorted and succeeded in making a tough, solid and
27 honest Bob Figas cower in fear, and/or hopefully just disappear (like the unfortunate John Aveggio
28 and then Foget), so that Defendants contamination can remain in place permanently, contaminating
Remingtons and Californias waters forever. TODAY and everyday, important public waters
flowing into National Wildlife Preserves are contaminated here.
734. As referenced above and in the RICO statement, defendants systematically practiced
the intimidation, coercion, exaction, extortion, and related threats on Remington and his witnesses,
263
1
and Mathson, Skillings and Olson also thinly disguised their extensive federally unlawful, pretrial
2
DISSUASION of Remingtons witnesses and contractors, who were then assisted by, and/or
3
worked in combination with Gans and his suborned perjury of all of his trial witnesses.
4
Simultaneously, as argued throughout, John Mathsons and his gangs continuous extortive
5
surveillances of Remington, their harassment, multiple fence vandalisms and numerous
6 miscellaneous above-described inferred trespasses, such as that on November 23, 2012 (above),
7 etc., at a minimum, is the subject of the RICO portion of Remingtons 2017 federal complaint,
8 comprising Volume II. Gans, Mathsons and all of the defendants 90-120 specific documented
9 and photographed criminal vandalism acts against plaintiffs property is not just a mere, minor
10 wobbler under California law, but as alleged herein has arisen to federal RICO predicate acts
status, ranging from extortion to obstruction of justice, plus the other 14 individual types of
11
crimes alleged.
12
735. As has been clearly understood since about 2014, neither Mathson nor Skillings are to
13
be trifled with. MATHSON IS A KNOWN SERIAL VANDAL AND ACTIVE CRIMINAL
14
constantly lurking around plaintiffs property perimeter; and, DEFENDANTS INTIMIDATOR IN
15
CHIEF SKILLINGS IS ALSO AN EXPERIENCED, CONVICTED CRIMINAL. Both are clearly
16 now very dangerous to plaintiff, all of his property and that of his friends and contractors, requiring
17 mitigating steps, including, but not limited to those costly steps and advance defensive, anticipatory
18 preparations partially revealed below, as costly, required additional DAMAGES due, for needing to
19 take unprecedented precautions, based on said above defendants real actions, real vandalism and
20 REAL threats and surveillance, not paranoid delusions or fantasy. There are many additional threats to
21
Remingtons property and safety involving many of the other named defendants and near-RICO
defendants, including Kishpaugh, Randall, Costa, Evans, Hilfiker and probably others, like Plotz for
22
example, that presently have more legitimate status and hence would be more unlikely suspects.
23
However, wearing a coat and tie does not mean that a potential defendant is exempt from
24
committing violent or criminal physical acts, in the field, as opposed to just committing mail and
25
wire fraud. Skillings looks the part of a violent enforcer and does that kind of rough, dirty, physically
26
arduous work for a living, however that does not automatically mean that he will be designated as
27 Gans primary enterprise enforcer, just because he is experienced at that. Gans and the RICO
28 leadership are very tricky and may select someone less obvious to be their anticipated imminent
enforcer.
736. Eventually Remington, his kind wife, Suzanne, (a still-working therapist) who
finds all of this to painful to deal with it all and his children, or grandchildren in any case,
will inevitably prevail, but why is it so uncertain, difficult and time-consuming to get any kind of
264
1
ethical Defendants legal opposition on the actual MERITS, or even partial justice in California,
2
after 8-15 years? Most of the answers to that question are likely found in the detailed and candid
3
discussions in the RICO statement, as regarding the failing Superior Court system and the
4
believed to be substantially corrupted County Health Department, the two bodies with almost
5
absolute power over these cases. Hopefully, Remingtons present faith in the superiority of the
6 federal system will prevail here.
7 A. As above, Remingtons 2017 RICO statement is fully incorporated herein by reference as
8 though it were fully set forth in this paragraph, and it is by and large the most updated late 2016-
9 2017 statement of the underlying RICO and environmental case facts and crimes against the Burl
10 Tree. Also all allegations and statements of facts thoroughly dispersed throughout these
documents, with perhaps no absolutely clear organization, are therefore all incorporated herein, to
11
each individual cause of action as needed, by reference.
12
13
XI. RELIEF REQUESTED
14
Plaintiff, BRUCE REMINGTON, respectfully requests this Court grant the following relief:
15
737. Declare defendants to have violated and to continue to be in violation of the CWA,
16 RCRA, CAA, SDWA, CERCLA, Californias continuing nuisance and trespass statutes, and all of
17 the other federal and state statutes cited above;
18 738. Issue an injunction ordering defendants to immediately build a suitable engineered
19 retaining wall along the property line in the main dump, where the debris is 8-16 feet deep. At the
20 moment, defendants have erroneously and stupidly begun a chain-link fence in that area which will
21
not have proper footings among the gigantic concrete blocks and asphalt, however the main
problem is that when Remington remediates his property below, said fence will collapse as well
22
several hundred cubic yards of hazardous wastes. In other words, excavating 10-20 feet deep in the
23
main dump area, were the slope is already 50-60, is going to instantly cause a landslide from
24
above, of the other unstable non-native 15-20 foot deep of debris from Mathsons land. If
25
Mathsons new chain-link fence is already in place, as they are obviously planning, then it is
26
obvious and inevitable that said fence plus said above debris will all collapse back down into
27 Remingtons remedial excavation. That will then either require Remington to remove another 200
28 or more costly, hand-bagged cubic yards of asbestos debris, or he can place it back up onto
Mathsons yard with his excavator, where defendants will object to it, it will quickly erode back
down into Remingtons property, and meanwhile the fence will be gone and have to be replaced.
739. In other words, this is an engineering issue, a simple one but one that needs to be
determined before any chain-link fence is installed along the property line. A suitable engineered
265
1
retaining wall needs to be constructed at the site first, as explained in Count 11 above, and then
2
Mathsons chain-link fence can be installed on those footings, set in native soils and not a bunch of
3
loose debris which is going to be removed.
4
740. This is a serious issue which has been written about extensively but always ignored by
5
defendants. This court needs to take it seriously and issue a suitable order before the Mathson
6 Miller Farms chain-link fence is constructed, and not afterwards. If this issue is ignored then the
7 seeds of another 10 years of litigation will have been sown, as has been explained previously, but
8 will not be fully addressed here due to length considerations.
9 741. Issue an injunction ordering defendants to immediately clean-up BOTH properties, and
10 particularly Remingtons which is the sole remedial purpose of this lawsuit. Defendants fully
admitted their liability and responsibility in the state August 2016 SOL trial, so all that needs to
11
be done now is to force defendants to remove their debris at their cost, or they can pay
12
Remington to do the work, at their option. Ideally, a tough environmental judge would further
13
on his own also optionally force defendants to also abate their own property and to operate their
14
dump, on their own why and, also in compliance with the CWA, RCRA, CAA, SDWA, CERCLA,
15
and the other applicable state and federal laws and required legal standards for handling effluent,
16 solid waste, contaminated water and all hazardous materials. Also defendants should be
17 ORDERED to take the other actions that are mandated under RCRA, which without limitation, is
18 to fully abate the imminent and substantial endangerment;
19 742. Order defendants to pay civil penalties of $1000 per day for their long-time violations of
20 the CWA, which continue daily, as their illegal septic system effluents and dissolved hydrocarbons,
21
deposited on both properties continue to flow and groundwater and all rainwater directly into
Remington Creek, which is a California tributary of Humboldt Bay and numerous sensitive
22
national fisheries and wildlife preserves;
23
743. Declare defendants to have violated, and to still be in violation of RCRA for discharging
24
the above cited petroleum products and other toxic and hazardous substances listed above from
25
their dump site, many of which are known carcinogens and/or reproductive toxins, in sufficient
26
quantity to pose an imminent and substantial risk to health and to the environment, pursuant to
27 preeminent environmental expert John Aveggios last handwritten note in his file, before his death;
28 744. Enjoin defendants Mathsons, RAO and Associates (and anyone else) from further
storing, disposing of and discharging any form of petroleum products, untreated septic effluents
including the proven E. coli and coliform, established by SHN in 2011, asbestos, lead compounds,
and/or any other hazardous substances from their property, since those toxic substances and

266
1
constituents already pose a past and continuing imminent and substantial threat and risk to health
2
and the environment;
3
745. Order the Mathsons to now begin complying with all of the procedural and substantive
4
requirements of RCRA, described and complained about for many years;
5
746. Declare defendants to have violated and to be in violation of RCRA 6972 (a) (1) (A) for
6 violation of a PERMIT, STANDARD OR REGULATION regarding the storage of hazardous
7 wastes, specifically RCRA 3004, 42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)
8 747. Order defendants to pay civil penalties of $500.00 per day for their violations of RCRA
9 6972 (a) (1) (A), pursuant to RCRA provisions, including 42 U.S.C. 6928 (a) and 42 U.S.C.
10 6928 (g), and/or pay for immediate remediation projects on BOTH properties to redress the harm
caused by Mathsons, defendants and ALL of their violations of RCRA, including without
11
limitation RCRA 3004 (d), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (d). Each of the above-described violations of
12
RCRA subjects the violator to a civil penalty on a per day basis, which penalties may be assessed
13
for violations occurring within five (5) years prior to initiation of a citizen enforcement action.
14
748. CWA, CAA, SDWA, and CERCLA also have specific fines, standards and penalties for
15
the above violations, according to proofs and without duplication of fines, cleanup and penalties
16 under each doctrine, i.e., only one seriously ordered cleanup, by this court, under any of these
17 applicable doctrines will will begin the inevitable snowballing cleanup process, which quickly
18 will suffice to eliminate the threat and litigations, because defendants have unlimited funding to
19 perform the requested cleanups, they have just bullheadedly decided theyre not going to do it;
20 749. Enter a judgment that the Mathsons and all defendants according to contributing FAULT
21
are required to pay civil penalties and exemplary damages, versus treble RICO damages, as
appropriate, as ordered by this court, and according to proofs at trial;
22
750. Enter such preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions or other orders pursuant to
23
RCRA requiring all the defendants to enjoin and abate the nuisance/trespass on BOTH
24
PROPERTIES, resulting from their discharges of petroleum products, refined petroleum
25
constituents and the other hazardous materials cited above from their facilities and dump, and the
26
migration of said toxins into the soil and waters of plaintiff directly below Mathsons dump, on
27 both properties, and from there into public waterways.
28 751. In that regard, as extensively described in these and related state documents, Gans
frivolous defense to all of these contamination allegations is that their Blue Rock tests, although
showing extensive concentrated hydrocarbons on Mathsons land, those concentrations did not
arise to levels which totally cried out for and demanded immediate removal in order to save
human life. But, as we have proven extensively, particularly John Aveggios July 1, 2011
267
1
deposition testimony at pages 86-91, said Blue Rock tests were entirely incompetent because the
2
labs did not test the samples until 6-8 weeks beyond required scientific holding-time, As fully
3
described in the RICO statement, section 3, under Kiff labs, Ferriman, Cal-Science, etc. In other
4
words, the high hydrocarbon readings which defendants still got, were estimated to be grossly
5
understated by somewhere between 100-1000%, and hence scientifically worthless and
6 deliberately deceptive and fraudulent intended to deceive all participants, and especially all courts
7 and juries!
8 752. Impose injunctive relief requiring the Mathsons and all defendants to immediately
9 investigate, test, assess and categorize the extent and types of pollution emanating from their
10 property and dump, BELOW the twin SOLID 6 pipes in the non-French drain gravel, install
at their expense a minimum 6 perforated drainage pipe at the base of the future retaining wall to
11
capture and transfer by gravity all subterranean water flowing beneath the dump to a capture,
12
monitoring and treatment site near Ridgewood Drive, operated by Remington, who has power
13
there, or Mathson, who is really the one that should be operating and paying for all of this.
14
Thereafter, defendants should implement the best available technology to remediate their present
15
and anticipated future pollution, which does migrate, ooze and otherwise move below their
16 contaminated hazardous materials at approximately the native soil line, and also below that in the
17 groundwater; because at least 95% of the runoff from Mathsons contaminated dump flows
18 directly into, onto and across Remingtons land by gravity alone, and it is only Remingtons land
19 which is directly and sharply below;
20 753. Impose injunctive relief requiring the Mathsons and all defendants to immediately
21
commence the complete characterization and remediation of all of the contamination they caused
on both properties, including plaintiffs planted areas well-downhill and south/west from the
22
primary toxic plume, which extends to about Ridgewood Drive on the south.
23
754. Enter judgment declaring that defendants have violated CERCLA and the other cited
24
statutes by failing to report releases of hazardous substances;
25
755. Issue an injunction compelling defendant to comply with its reporting requirements
26
under CERCLA, CAA, SDWA, CERCLA, and RCRA;
27 756. Award plaintiff his costs of suit, including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees, pursuant
28 to Section 505 (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1365 (d), Section 7002 of RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6972 (e), Section
310 (f) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9659 (f), and Section 326 (f) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C.. 11046 (f), and
applicable California law;
757. As to the amount of monetary damages under both the Federal and State allegations, Remington
requests generally: A. Special Damages according to proof; B. General damages according to Proof;
268
1
C. Costs of suit, including filing fees and expert costs; D. Prejudgment interests and any other
2
further relief developed at trial that the court considers proper; E. For damages in an amount in
3
excess of $350,000, according to proof, representing the economic losses incurred by plaintiff
4
alleged herein including costs for diminished property market value, loss of income and/or
5
business development opportunities, permanent property damage, plant diseases, deaths and
6 replacement costs, the slide damages referenced above, the costs of drilling an uncontaminated
7 irrigation well, loss of desired and planned uses for the property, and investigative, administrative,
8 professional and other costs plus reasonable wages for time incurred; F. Reasonable attorneys fees
9 and paralegal costs to the extent incurred in that time frame to the full extent authorized by law and
10 for the reasonable legal research and legal document drafting time of plaintiff (for this action and
the state case), at a minimum fee of the prevailing paralegal wage rate for comparable work,
11
pursuant to CCP 1021.9 and CCP 1021.5, presently in the amount of approximately $245,000,
12
and rising, according to actual proofs at trial; G. Any other and further relief that the court
13
considers proper; H. For trial by jury; and I. SINCE RELIEF AT LAW HAS BEEN
14
INADEQUATE HERE FOR 10 YEARS, EQUITABLE RELIEF FROM THIS COURT IS
15
NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE.
16 758. MORE SPECIFICALLY, REMINGTON DEMANDS MONETARY DAMAGES OF THE
17 FOLLOWING TYPES AND MAGNITUDE, ACCORDING TO PROOFS AT A TRIAL, and as
18 attenuated by a Renz ruling governing the number of years of damages recoverable in and as
19 attenuated by a Renz ruling governing the number of years of damages recoverable in this action.
20
21 XII. SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTALLY BASED DAMAGES FOR ALL CAUSES

22 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS.
759. Plaintiff has incurred, IS incurring, or will incur damages in addition to the aforesaid resulting
23
from defendants conduct which include, inter alia, remediable and continuing damage to plaintiffs land,
24
loss of income, SEVERE PERSONAL PHYSICAL INJURIES NOW (AS EXPLAINED), increased
25
development costs, tens OF thousands of dollars of plant deaths and replanting costs from poisoning and
26
multiple weekly (over 150 total) VANDALISMS, lost business opportunities and income (from Mathsons
27
unauthorized use and trespass by his stored toxins and pathogens, without paying RENT), investigative
28 costs, lost work time, professional expert fees, increased Homeowners insurance costs, legal fees and
further damages, the exact amount of which are unknown but which alone will exceed $250,000 in total.
760. Damages are sought for the prior 3 years before filing in July 2008, PLUS continuing damages

269
1
until remediation or a final appellate verdict per Renz v. 33rd District Agricultural (1995) 39 Cal.
2
App. 4th 61, 66-69 (citing Baker, Spaulding, Kafka and many other California Supreme Court
3
decisions). In a very comprehensive and thorough analysis the RENZ Court, and others following
4
it, determined that damages for continuing nuisance incurred between the commencement and
5
final conclusion of a continuing nuisance action are recoverable in that action.
6 761. Damages may be awarded..., for detriment coming after commencement thereof, (CC
7 3283.) Here, that means the court must decide and adjudicate if the 2008 cases damages extend for
8 only the 3 prior years, from 2005-2008, or much more reasonably under the good law of Renz, from
9 2005 to the date of a final appellate decision, which would be years after a final trial, perhaps in 2019.
10 That is 3 years versus 11-17 years of damages at $20-150k per year. OBVIOUSLY, most exact damages
are UNKNOWN today until the damage period is designated by Court as to MOST allegations.
11
762. For Remediation costs of at least $260,000+, as above (by Injunction or jury verdict) for
12
abatement of nuisance/trespasses on Remingtons land, per the SHN RAP, dated June 2011 for
13
$160,000; plus $45,000 for the extra water capturing means discussed above (as scientifically
14
PROVEN by experts finally in 2011), and $50,000 for the purchase, installation and maintenance
15
of the water treatment and circulation systems, for ten (10) years, plus at least another $5000 for
16 regulatory updates, reports, monitoring and liaison. These are 2015 numbers to be refined in 2016-17
17 at the next trial, and beyond.
18 763. Remediation of Remingtons polluted site can be expertly accomplished by reasonable
19 means at reasonable costs, and very obviously and definitely at a reasonable fraction of the present
20 huge reduction in market value of the overall valuable estate, depending upon how the later is
21
calculated or whether the house is entirely finished at time of a jury verdict thereon.
764. For Testing, environmental consultants, expert, site study, site closure costs, and all
22
miscellaneous costs, such as All State Special Motion and other Federal Court sanctions (now
23
about $10k), administrative costs, equipment costs and maintenance, (substantially) increased
24
Homeowners Insurance premiums, and all legal costs and fees;
25
765. For Slide damages, substantial topsoil and plant loses above Remington Creek (and
26
elsewhere, per g.) emanating directly from unmitigated large storm flow volumes and velocities from
27 Mathsons unfettered twin 6drains, increased development, replacement, restoration and slide repair
28 costs, per FACs & herein, depending upon dates included here by Court, but over $12,500 in total by
fall 2016, JUST below said twin drains alone. Those damages include numerous mitigation response
costs, serious and costly topsoil losses, which require hand-replacement with 5-gallon buckets carried
by hand down precarious paths from hundreds of steep feet away, plus continuing and increasing

270
1
plant damages of several thousand dollars, according to proofs at trial. Upper slide damages near the
2
residence were estimated at $22,000 prior to the 2016-17 rainy season.
3
766. For general DAMAGES of approximately $2.5 million dollars for physical injuries,
4
pain and suffering, intentional infliction of significant and extreme emotional distress and
5
annoyance damages, originating on May 5, 2006, as indicated from Joy Mathsons deposition
6 ADMISSIONS, the many years of subsequent discussions about it, the Declaration of Bruce
7 Remington (DBR) to Judge Watson, and according to proofs and presentations to the jury at trial,
8 and entirely based on their mercy, sense of justice and discretion;
9 767. Exemplary and Punitive damages are recoverable against ALL Defendants, and their
10 dishonest, unethical attorneys, for 8+ LONG-YEARS of flagrant, deliberate, willful, reckless, malicious,
intimidating, oppressive, criminal, conspiratorial frauds, perjury, about 70+ felony VANDALISMS (with
11
damage exceeding $400) and about 20+ misdemeanor and wobbler actions, with less damages, and other
12
related criminal trespasses, WITH TOTAL DAMAGES ACCORDING TO PROOFS AT TRIAL OF
13
OVER $147,000, per RICO statement; The basis of Remingtons damages are defendants malicious,
14
unethical and more recent criminal behavior for 8-10 years as previously discussed specifically by dates
15
and alleged acts, herein, and will be systematically presented at trial.
16 768. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED. As alleged above, the acts
17 of the defendants were clearly and incontrovertibly willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, deceitful
18 and in conscious disregard for plaintiffs rights, the safety of plaintiff and others in this community,
19 including specific individual children living up-wind and directly across the street from the dump
20 (causing various signs to be specially posted by Remington on December 2, 2015) to warn a specific
21
3-year old girl, her friends and parents NOT to play opposite the Mathson-Remington property line
immediately across Westgate Drive, from the border, where ASBESTOS, etc BLOWS. ALL the people
22
of California, as complained above, are threatened and impacted by Defendants wanton, negligent,
23
careless, unconcerned actions, and justify an award of exemplary and/or punitive damages in an
24
amount sufficient to punish defendants and to make an example of them, to hopefully deter others
25
from similar behavior, according to proofs. RAO and Mathson BOTH (and all of the others named
26
where appropriate) need to be made an example of locally in the press, TV media and with and among
27 the local dog-walkers along Westgate (now in jeopardy of asbestosis or worse), so that no one
28 locally in this or future generations repeats these heinous environmental crimes against Remington, the
neighborhood, their children and the environment. Many in the neighborhood have been led to believe
that Remington is the criminal violator here and will be probably pleasantly surprised to learn that the
truth is the opposite of that.

271
1
769. Gans and Plotz have already filed blatantly frivolous Malicious Prosecution charges
2
against Remington in DR140426 related to the 2009 Federal case, presently stayed, after the SAME
3
charges were dismissed by Judge Reinholtsen in DR080678.
4
A. Remington however has already conclusively demonstrated OBVIOUS probable cause in
5
the 2009 federal case when attorney Hans Herb assisted in the filing and reviewed all allegations in
6 BOTH cases active then and joined-in. The Magistrate also ruled in DETAIL on said case in 2009,
7 which is independent corroboration of its validity sufficient in itself, allowing it to easily go
8 forward on the facts as then known. Those facts would have prevailed and still will prevail
9 eventually, but for Remingtons careless and HARMLESS Rule 26 disclosure errors, based
10 essentially on his lack of full incentive to prosecute that case because it appeared near imminent
settlement in the state case. However, Remington was duped once again by Gans, and that
11
deception which Remington reasonably relied on than has resulted in no resolution here 6-7 years
12
later, which was a steep price to pay for that Rule 26 disclosure error.
13
B. As a result of the above malicious, deceitful and oppressive litigatory behavior of
14
defendants, and obviously also based upon the facts in the RICO statement, Remington requests that
15
said actions be considered when awarding punitive damages.
16 770. Physical Injuries to Remington. For past Asbestosis and inhalation damages from the
17 friable asbestos and Chrysotile fibers abandoned all over the dump on BOTH properties, including the
18 past and present pain, suffering and future anxiety damages going forward associated with the deadly
19 infectious immune-system destroying pathogens, presumably caused by and associated with the human
20 sewage bacteria which is rampant, causing near fatal symptoms, and which may mysteriously,
21
invisibly attack Remington AGAIN at any moment;
771. For TRESPASS/Nuisance Damages for annoyance, intentional infliction of emotional
22
distress, mental distress, anguish and the malicious vandalisms are awardable by a jury and recoverable
23
under many California precedents, e.g., Armitage v. Decker (1990) 218 Cal App. 3d 887, 905. John
24
Mathsons tamed deer army ravaged Remingtons numerous rare species for many years killing plants, as
25
per proofs.
26
772. For Treble damages from loss of agricultural land due to trespassing. Additionally,
27 Defendants trespasses caused major gardening difficulties on the dump sites as Plaintiff arduously
28 tried to hand-dig holes in the solid, packed concrete and asphalt with a pick and maddock, import
mulch, fertilizers and topsoil to that steep, nearly inaccessible hillside, and drip and hand-irrigate it
for 9 years;
773. For falling and removal costs of the 5 imminently dangerous Mathson leaning trees
which threaten injury to Remington and others and cause anxiety. At least one or two redwoods is
272
1
involved here and at least 4 dangerous Alders remain ON MATHSONS LAND, leaning towards
2
Remingtons precariously. One recently fell without wind or any provocation, across BOTH parties land
3
as it happened, landing on the fence and killing anything directly underneath it if any animals were
4
there. Some are visible in Photo #59 but from 90 degrees wrong angle;
5
774. For Loss of Income, use and the rental value of approximately one half acre of land
6 on north side of ravine for the last 16 years have been suffered, about half of that adjacent to Ms
7 house and yard and the rest far below, where trees and roses mostly die slowly if directly impacted by
8 contaminated HC and toxic waters from above, VERSUS Restitution damages as described below;
9 775. For Remingtons legal services at para-legal rates of $25/hour x 4000 hours, according
10 to proofs;
776. For ADDITIONAL, future medical damages and costs for Remingtons broken-down
11
immune system, Ramsey-Hunt Syndrome and related issues, including permanent severe 80% hearing
12
loss in right ear and permanent loss of equilibrium, see photo #32, ability to function in low light,
13
somewhat impaired night driving, etc. Remingtons entire standard of comfortable happy living and
14
LEL were reduced about 50% from dump-originating pathogens, especially the pneumonia as
15
Remingtons lungs have become congested, weakened and laden with asbestos fibers. Remingtons
16 sleep, respiration and circulation are severely impacted.
17 A. The jury can set reasonable values, however in terms of Remingtons lifetime chart and
18 presentation, LEL damages are HIGH.
19 777. For the INCREASED COSTS of irrigating 4 acres and 15,000 plants and large trees with
20 County water from a back-flow prevention meter, which averages about $3000 per year, for the
21
past 3 years, ABOVE what was spent previously before Remington Creek became mostly too
polluted, environmentally suspect, and unusable below Test Hole #1, which is substantially above
22
Tank C. Also the County prohibitions against working in the asbestos areas of the dump, made water
23
pump maintenance from Tank A to Tank C and use of that MAIN PATH untenable and caused the
24
described health issues, including uncontrollable coughing within about 100 of the exposed
25
asbestos and other potentially deadly DUSTS.
26
778. Additional costs and DAMAGES directly attributable to defendants pollution of all usable
27 water supplies North of Remington Creek, from 2013-2016 (October), is hence $9000. Remington
28 requests that sum be added to any jury judgment in these actions as additional damages proximately
and DIRECTLY caused by defendants contamination of the ground and surface water by
concentrated hydrocarbons, lead, asbestos and carcinogenic DUSTS, on the northern banks and
slopes above Remington Creek and to the 2005-8 Agreed Fence.

273
1
779. For OTHER economic loses of previous 3 years, including without limitation: Remingtons
2
continuing costs incurred in investigating, testing, researching, litigating, visually monitoring soil and
3
surface and groundwater beneath plaintiffs property, time and costs of temporarily diverting, evasively
4
ditching, piping, monitoring and otherwise partially controlling Defendants contaminated spring and
5
surface water and groundwater to remove, divert, monitor, pipe, ditch, and generally minimize the
6 noticeable impacts of Mathsons contaminants on Remingtons trees and bushes below said dump,
7 and/or reducing and mitigating against the currently observable, smellable, infectious and most toxic
8 pollutants beneath both properties, which ooze out of ground in the swamp, adjacent to Ridgewood
9 Drive;
10 780. For Plaintiff and the PEOPLE who have further incurred other serious damages to
their economic interests, including fisherman, crabbers and local consumers of Humboldt Bay sea-
11
life, and/or to their health by ingesting ecoli and coliform bacteria-poisoned fish and shellfish. These
12
known poisoned Bay waters impact: 1) all eatable sea life in this region, anyone who ingests anything
13
while swimming or even living within several miles of here; 2) many peoples respiratory health (the
14
asbestos inhalation threats and HAZARDS overlap here), personal satisfaction and comfortable,
15
relaxed enjoyment of life generally; and 3) damage the value and vitality of the local neighborhood RE
16 market; and 4) cause the loss of use and enjoyment of present and commercial water courses and
17 diminish and decimate Rs park-related, recreational, photographic & visitor-oriented opportunities;
18 781. For Early reimbursable remediation COSTS, to date, during the previous 3 years
19 only. Remington paid Figas and other haulers to date about $2800, to begin the road across the
20 ravine to the DUMP area and to remove hazardous debris on the grounds surface, with Remington
21
managing and working FREE.
782. Administration. For related, needed expenses and costs, continued motion filing fees,
22
substantial USPS postage costs, the purchase of two new Apple computers, a printer, new copy
23
machine, NUMEROUS expensive security cameras and devices, signs, camera memory cards,
24
super 8mm to digital video conversion cables, telephoto camera lenses and related video assists,
25
and many other office supplies, expert costs, SUBSTANTIAL Staples and other copying costs for
26
these long documents, substantial auto expenses to consummate same, legal research services and
27 reference books, CACI Instructions, consulting fees, utility costs for light, heat, air conditioning,
28 water, and related expenses, plus many other costs of suit of about $35,000, itemized previously;
783. For Recent and future enhanced security costs, including: Time spent on better defensive
physical conditioning, increased mobility in low-light, or NO light; time on physiotherapy, research
and purchases of infrared movement technology, sound actuated lights and wireless and other
monitoring cameras at multiple locations, powerful video cards, additional (backup) guns, sufficient
274
1
ammunition for same, other weapons, body armor, shield and a flak jacket, a silent alarm, permits,
2
night vision goggles, ETC, through 2015 only; plus the costs of purchasing, renting and/or
3
independently operating metal detectors, magnetometers and/or related ground radar imaging devices,
4
or similar, over portions of the landfill; and a better (backup) helmet among other preparations, for an
5
expected increasingly sullen and desperate Mathson, and the new DOE Defendant criminals (and
6 RAOs apparently law violating children, according to the Times Standard and anecdotal reports),
7 who are expected to RETALIATE more violently than their previous merely verbal intimidations and
8 felony vandalisms, which have not yet deterred Rs resolve for JUSTICE here. After the Renz
9 decision, these costs will be added-up;
10 784. For continuing and future physical pain, suffering and discomfort (not covered at f.),
through TRIAL in March 2016 and continuing, according to proofs, including acute asbestos
11
respiratory issues and lung damage; an 8-day hospitalization (and two month recuperative period)
12
requiring carrying Remington, and ambulance transport which all resulted in Remingtons near death,
13
while in fact Remingtons mother DID die then, while Remington was hospitalized and unable to
14
fully manage HER care-giving staff 100%, 24/7, or even speak to his mother in her last week.
15
Mathsons landfill shortened Remingtons mothers life.
16 785. TODAY, in March 2017, Remington still has QUITE substantial ITCHING, 24/7 which is
17 hard to control, disturbs sleep and is very aggravating and distracting, like NOW, for example.
18 Remington also still has (December 2015) substantial facial paralysis, tightness, discomfort, facial
19 and extremity nerve pain, still requiring antihistamines (125 mg/day) and calamine BOTH for itching
20 control, especially at NIGHT. Remington also contracted severe venous stasis dermatitis around here
21
somewhere, and still has serious Ramsey-Hunt syndrome, disequilibrium and auto-immune
syndrome, as above. Remingtons sleep is now intermittent and insufficient, on a good night.
22
Unfortunately, Remington cannot function intellectually on less than 7 1/2 hours of good sleep, so
23
this is a big problem to emphasize to a jury;
24
786. Additional trespass damages. As a proximate result of the several above-cited problems
25
created by Defendants on some of Plaintiffs most valuable near-to-Westgate Drive frontage
26
property, including a viable splitable, buildable lot in that vicinity, Plaintiff has thereby
27 additionally suffered continuous, objectionable harassment and PHYSICAL DAMAGES,
28 INCLUDING: considerable mental anguish, emotional distress, nervous suffering, acute LUNG
problems at inconvenient times (including actual pneumonia, serious flu complications and other
ordinary non-viral coughing), acute BPH, venous stasis dermatitis, various other ancillary physical
ailments, has had trouble sleeping properly and has had to take various prescription and related
medications, at times, for said problems, including, without limitation: Flowmax, Finasteride,
275
1
Viagra, Cheratusin, Hydrocodon Acetaminophen, Cyclobenzaprine and very high doses of
2
Melatonin.
3
787. Further, he has often had trouble focusing and concentrating on his maintenance work and
4
business around the property, never knowing what outrageous and/or criminal conduct by Mathson
5
will occur next, such as deer jumping suddenly out of brush, let-in to destroy plants by Mathson;
6 also unpleasant is, Mathsons recent continuous flash photography (simulating a gun blast, as
7 above) and/or nasty, intolerable angry yelling across the fence at any and every expert or personal
8 visitor to Plaintiffs adjacent land for thoughtful scientific investigations, using the developed,
9 established path system, which is the only reasonable means of studying Defendants
10 contamination and for surveying the precipitous steep slopes Mathson built on Plaintiffs formerly
pristine forested land, or when the next Mathson let-in bear will bolt out of the dense brush.
11
788. As a result of the above, and similar acts, and pursuant to multiple case authority,
12
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court and jury award significant damages for emotional
13
distress, as permitted by statute for trespass, (which should include those incurred from
14
Mathsons trained deer army, strange as that may sound, but according to proofs at trial) and
15
which would additionally be available for Defendants interference with Remingtons specific
16 property right to use his substantial land area adjacent to Mathson and below the dump for pristine
17 redwood and fall-color related gardens, and for pathways across said gardens, compatible with his
18 multi-acre adjacent gardens, which use has been totally abrogated and eliminated by Defendants
19 pollution, which damages will continue until remediation. Interference with Plaintiffs multiple-
20 species agricultural operations of all sorts also warrants emotional and/or treble damages under
21
California authorities, independently of the RICO allegations.
789. For Reasonable rental damages at prevailing market rates, as determined fairly by the
22
RE experts from BOTH sides at trial, for Mathsons substantial, INVALUABLE, unlawfully
23
appropriated and unauthorized crucial use of Remingtons land in the preceding three years to
24
support his entire backyard and concrete barriers above; but, ONLY to the extent NOT recovered
25
under Restitution. Defendants profits are believed to have been much greater than a $1-2000/month
26
rental rate, as evidenced by RAOs massive RE development, multiple homes, and structures along 300
27 yards of Walnut including his main offices. Defendants have now successfully stored their hazardous
28 wastes on Remingtons land for 18 years and Remington NOW DEMANDS RENT for that equal to
their illicit, illegitimate, crooked profits.
790. For other future Court-ordered declaratory relief, as appropriate, required, ordered by
the court and to extent permitted by law, and SPECIFICALLY for contribution and indemnity from

276
1
Defendants, the admitted overall responsible party, for future anticipated liability from the California
2
Water Board and/or County, which will eventually assess response costs here, against someone.
3
791. Declaratory relief NOW in this action would settle the question regarding future liability
4
for such regulatory costs, will help reduce the pollution of Californias water from Mathsons
5
contaminated springs which continue to flow into Remington Creek and beyond, could adjudicate
6 the stigma issue, and would also promote judicial efficiency by avoiding future MULTIPLE lawsuits;
7 792. Prejudgment Interest on defendants unjust enrichment profits plus Remingtons costs and
8 expenses over the last 3 or more years, according to proofs and an acceptable formula established by
9 this court.
10 794. Estimated or actual Damages for RE (real estate) STIGMA are requested, according to
proofs, industry standards and all RE appraisers opinions. STIGMA WILL need to be REVISITED
11
in the future, likely by independent successive action lawsuit in about 10 years, if Stigma becomes
12
an obvious impediment to realizing full market value for Remingtons estate going forward, due to
13
the reappearance of contamination issues, some other provable evidence, or merely stigma-bias
14
based on false innuendo and rumors that Remingtons land is poisoned and never can be made purer
15
again. The neighbors along Westgate Drive are gradually becoming familiar with the danger and
16 threat here from defendants illegally disposed of asbestos. The three (3) year-old girl Remington saw
17 playing 100 directly above, and precisely up-wind from the blowing friable asbestos, lead and silica
18 dusts, etc. on December 2, 2015, needs to play far-away from their, indefinitely. Remington posted at
19 least five (5) relevant warning signs facing the street at that spot, precisely where that little girl was
20 playing, however Mathson and his Westgate gang quickly vandalized them, removed several, defaced
21
others, and Remingtons initial replacements have now become obscured, weathered and/or
unintelligible. Time permitting, Remington will make stronger bigger and better signs with the
22
materials he now has on hand (for a year) and will also personally visit some of the most directly
23
affected neighbors to explain their imminent respiratory and pathogenic dangers and also to
24
determine if some of those direct neighbors have had any adverse respiratory, immune system or
25
carcinogenic health effects, over the last several years, as would be expected from long-term exposure
26
to air migrations from the numerous exposed surface toxins presently at defendants hazardous waste
27 dump.
28 795. Burning costs. $6000 is requested from Defendants for Remingtons personal difficult,
dangerous over 300 hours of burning of at least 20-tons of Mathsons redwood branches and slash, e.g
Photo collage #41, a few of 50 fires that large;

277
1
796. For trial by Court, jury, RESTITUTION, mediation or other resolution, such as sitting-
2
down face-to-face with Remingtons attorneys Mr. Herb or Mr. Roberts, or at a Court Settlement
3
Conference;
4
797. For any such other, additional un-itemized damages and further relief that Remington is not
5
currently aware of; or which the Court deems just and proper to compensate Plaintiff for all proximate
6 economic, emotional, time, loss of use, income, physical injuries & damages caused by above torts and
7 injustices.
8 798. LEL. BOTH adult Eureka Remingtons, Bruce and Suzanne, have Lost 80% of their
9 Enjoyment for Life, rather obviously, but well explain it FULLY, thoroughly, HONESTLY and
10 without deceit, exaggeration or hyperbole to the jury. Most of the last eight (8) years was lost here for
both Bruce and Suzanne Remington with only one actual brief vacation during that entire period,
11
spent commuting to and from Prairie Creek State Park and Headwaters National Park, in order to take
12
panoramic photographs. As described elsewhere, Remingtons daughter, son-in-law and three darling
13
very young granddaughters, from about ages 2-7 now have also been gravely affected by defendants
14
contamination and almost never visit, and when they do we do not build playhouses, forts, tree
15
houses, paths or ANYTHING on this large spectacular property and one time childrens playground
16 extravaganza, but stay out of the air and away from the dangerous animals for the most part, as
17 described. Outside playing is now unfortunately done at another location now which yard size is about
18 1/75th the size of 832 Westgates potential play areas. Many more details about these danger and
19 damage issues have been thoroughly charted, and will be sworn to and available at the next trial in
20 any of these cases.
21
799. CONCLUSION, as of October 2016: Remingtons total HARM and Damage now,
which continue, are complex, large and multiple ORDERS are necessary. The damages requested
22
in Volume II, also apply to this consolidated case. In March 2017, they continue to increase at least
23
weekly.
24
SPECIFIC ESTIMATED RICO DAMAGES, are discussed and summarized in the RICO
25
statement, at pages 656-670. They are now considered to be separate and largely different from
26
those requested herein, but by the time of trial detailed information about Remingtons RICO
27 damages will be better developed, further discovered and at some point all damages can be
28 consolidated into one judgment, part of which may be suitable for treble damages.
Finally, see portion of Remingtons fundamental trial charts made for the 2016 contamination
trial which never took place, PHOTO EXHIBITS #76-84. If the Lion got away, Mathson
must pay. Here that means that Mathson and defendants had an immutable responsibility to their
downhill neighbors, the Remingtons, not to damage them under numerous California doctrines
278
1
including nuisance, trespass, strict liability and negligence. Here Remington is arguing, among
2
other things that defendants improperly disposed of many dangerous, hazardous and ultra-toxic
3
substances which damaged Remington as explained further in the footnote below,41 and for which
4
he now wants to be compensated for by the defendants who have admitted guilt, particularly in
5
view of the RICO enterprise which has now taken over protecting defendants to the great detriment
6 of Remington. If the man below also had no excuses and just admitted that he screwed-up and let
7 the lion get away, killing various people, who was then responsible?
8 Here, defendants are responsible for restoring Remingtons property back to the way it was
9 initially, nothing more and nothing less.
10
11
12 DATED: March 27, 2017 BY: _______________________________

13 Bruce Remington, in pro se
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
41. Gerry Spence made that phrase and argument famous in his successful defense in the Karen
Silkwood case involving the release of a poisonous toxin which killed the defendant. I If the lion
22 got away, the defendant has to pay is simply the law and it is based on a real 19th century English
common law case where some guy brought an old lion onto his grounds, and put it into a cage, and
23 lions are dangerous, and through no particular fault of his own, the lion got away. The lion went
24 out and ate up a few people, and they sued the man. They said, you know, pay us the value of a
few human lives as it was your lion and he got away. And the man said, but I did everything in
25 my power to prevent that. I had a good cage, it was locked, and I had trained people watching the
lion, so it isnt my fault that he got away. Why should you punish him?
26
The jury and the law said that you have to pay because it was your lion, and therefore it was
27 your fault, UNLESS the person who was hurt let the lion out himself. That is the fraudulent
basis of Gans frivolous defense here, where he now asserts that Remington let the lion out
28 himself, by Remington doing the impossible levitation of more than 2 million pounds of
hazardous wastes, that defendants have even actually admitted to dumping on their property
and also onto Remingtons, from one mountaintop to another across the ravine and a major
Creek. Further, there was zero machinery access between the properties and was difficult to get
there even by foot and carrying nothing. Therefore it is impossible and a deliberate fraud by Gans
to assert that Remington contaminated his own property adjacent to Mathsons landfill in the
manner alleged by Gans.
279

2017 Fed Final, 279, 7-14-17,#799 Libre

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2017 Fed Final, 279, 7-14-17,#799 Libre

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

Bruce Remington, In Pro per

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

8 knows what arson or murders may still occur here.

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10 intentionally menacing, exaggerated STARES at Remington as he left the courtroom in August

10 years; however, John Mathsons continuous series of felony vandalisms, RETALIATORY

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

20 CA and Nevada if they could avoid it.

2 VI. SUMMARY OF CAUSES OF ACTION HEREIN, AUTHORITY AND

21 the apparent misapplication of Collateral Estoppel.

20 alternative criteria or standard but is not a requirement to prove a continuing trespass-nuisance,

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10 (1) Altered, destroyed, mutilated and/or concealed other objects, or attempted to do so

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10 as statute of limitations, collateral estoppel or summary adjudication, or as a last resort by criminal

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

150. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONTINUING TRESPASS,

16 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ABATEMENT OF CONTINUING TRESPASS

10 SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: UNJUST ENRICHMENT versus RESTITUTION

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10 169. Punitive damages may be awarded here, as a deterrent/punishment to RAO, Mathson,

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28 ADJUDICATION OF OTHER RELATED PENDANT STATE CLAIMS, TORTS AND

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28 195. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, CACI 3600.

20 needles and/or planted weeds.

7 VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

9 of a residential hazardous waste dump by Remington or regulatory authorities entirely

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

20 never did, UNTIL January 2006 is explained above and elsewhere.

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16 as though RAO suddenly acquired a couple million dollars from somewhere.

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

15 [See SJI # 29: 2000E-ALL DEFENDANTS UNDERSTATED (OUT-OF-TIME) TESTING,

10 ASBESTOS and CHRYSOTILE allegations, unless specifically limited or augmented.

20 over time, which is noticeable from month-to-month.

10 (illegal) backyard septic system, and

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

20 disclosable RE sale condition according to Remingtons 3 RE appraisal experts, including Nielson.

301.THIS CASE IS A SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL CASE, like the prior

7 property. WHY SHOULDNT THE POLLUTER PAY TO CLEAN-UP HIS OWN

21 firms RICO enterprise.

20 that footnote 20, NO OTHER, ADDITIONAL MATERIAL NEEDS TO MIGRATE, BLOW,

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10 properties. [See also SJI #31: 2000G-REMEDIATION OF REMINGTONS LAND AFTER

10 prohibits discharges of pollutants or activities not authorized by, or in violation of an effluent

20 33 U.S.C. 1362 (7).

20 CREEK, CREATING AN IMMINENT THREAT HERE WHICH CONTINUES IN 2016, and

REMINGTON'S 2017 SUCCESSIVE ACTION FEDERAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES