Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST

Bruce Remington, in pro se

1
5149 Blackberry Lane
2 Eureka, California, 95503
Telephone: 707-666-9145
3
Email: Brucerem@suddenlink.net
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
BRUCE REMINGTON, CASE NO.: 17-CV-02007-JS
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs. PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND
13 ACQUIESCENCE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION
JOHN MATHSON, JOY MATHSON; TO DISMISS FAC AND REQUEST TO FILE
14
RAO CONSTRUCTION, INC, RICH SIMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTIONS,
15 OLSON, KYLE SKILLINGS; RUSSELL ALREADY MADE, AS A SAC; RULE 10 (b) & (c).
16 GANS, RYAN PLOTZ, PAUL BRISSO,
JULIE GILBRIDE, NICHOLAS
17 KLOEPPEL, MITCHELL, BRISSO,
18 DELANEY & VRIEZE, LLP LAW FIRM; Hearing Date: September 21, 2017
JEFF NELSON; JOHN KISHPAUGH; Time: 2: 00 PM
19 MORGAN RANDALL; BOYD DAVIS, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco, CA
20 AND CITY OF EUREKA; LINDA Honorable Jon S. Tigar
LAWRENCE; AND DOES 1-20,
21 INCLUSIVE,
22
Defendants
23
24
25
26
27
28

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

1
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
INDEX TO OPPOSITION, 8-24-17 PAGE #
1
I. INTRODUCTION.
2
A. Plaintiff agrees with defendants that he made egregious incorporation errors in FAC 3
3
B. A SAC has been completed easily, eliminating the complained of errors 3
4
C. Explicit references have now been made to ECF #1, pursuant to Rule 10 3
5 D. WHICH defendants are being sued for WHAT has also been clarified 4
6 E. Remingtons comments on defendants motion and their new fraudulent deceptions 4
7 II. DISCUSSION.
8 A. Stupid oversight 4
9 B. New fraudulent deceptions have been generated by defendants 5

10 C. Exactly WHO is sued for WHAT? 6

1. Introduction, 480 permutations, 16 x 30, to consider in terms of 300 crimes 6
11
2. General merging of contamination and RICO defendants is presently ongoing 6
12
3. EXCEPTIONS, to the merging of ALL defendants together (9) 7
13
4.Renz decision needed eventually, and is CRUCIAL 7
14
5. Detailed response to defendants objections, ridicule and criticisms, (a)-(m) 8-11
15 D. Numerous new fraudulent mischaracterizations by Mr. Gans 11-16
16 1. Introduction: Mr. Gans has an unmistakable corrupt fallacious style to plaintiff 12
17 2. New, specific deceptions 13
18 A. Page 3: 7-11, of Gans recent August 2017 Motion to Dismiss FAC 13
19 1. TWO actions were not litigated to final judgment on the merits 13

20 2. The numerous unfounded administrative complaints (fallacy and fraud) 14

B. The Ninth claim is asserted against RICO cover-ups? False quote fraud 14
21
1. What was plaintiffs actual accurate statement? 15
22
2. Gans fraudulent intent was similar to his 2014 SJ Judge Vadas plagiarism 15
23
C. The 11th Claim. Another fraudulent quote by defendants 16
24
3. Additional deceptions related to the May 29, 2015 state Demurrer, wherein Mr. Gans
25 intentionally & deceptively Judicially Noticed the wrong Motion to Strike Order here16
26 A-B. Plaintiffs excuses not absurd, LIE By defendants 17
27 C. The true relevant facts, 1-6 17-18
28 7 (a)-(e) MORE true facts 18-21
E. Rule 10 21-22
III. CONCLUSIONS, FAC erroneous, SAC made all corrections, ethical issues here 22-23

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

2
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
I. INTRODUCTION
2
A. Plaintiff absolutely AGREES that it was a serious technical error and late night,
3
distracted proof-reading oversight to attempt to incorporate the ENTIRE original 1220-page
4
complaint, ECF #1, into the FAC. That was illogical, stupid and Remington apologizes for the
5 mistake. He has also already corrected all the errors in the FAC1, and now merely awaits
6 court permission to refile the simple clerical semantic corrections, as a SAC.
7 B. That obvious (now), innocent procedural error has already been easily rectified in a few
8 hours, at the 14 major, egregious problematic reference passages to the entirety of ECF #1, plus
9 numerous minor clearer references. ALL references to WHO was sued under each cause were
10 revisited and a few were reconsidered and edited clearer, including 2-3 of the ambiguous and
11 indefinite references complained of by defendants. Since 98-100% of the desired corrections have
already been made (August 22nd), plaintiff can proof-read it all a final time in 3-4 hours. However,
12
since he does not receive court directives until 4-6 PM typically, he requests at least two additional
13
(2) days from the court, in order to make any further explicit and direct references to the initial
14
pleading, a couple weeks from now, and then have sufficient time for any ECF filing problems.
15
C. As cited specifically below, specific, explicit and direct references to any exhibits
16 including specific paragraphs in prior complaints, is (obviously, to the court) permissible under
17 Federal Rule 10 (b) & (c), relevant treatises, pro se help and the case law cited below. Rule 10
18 (b) allows specific referrals to numbered paragraphs related to specific issues or circumstances in
19 an earlier pleading; and, Rule 10 (c) permits specific statements from any pleading to be adopted
20 by reference elsewhere in any other pleading or motion. Now that plaintiff has discovered, read
21 and understood Rule 10, that Rule just highlights his clearly erroneous oversight in inadvertently
attempting to incorporate the entire 1220-pages, which logically and obviously would defeat the
22
purposes of the last several months of proceedings here, and specifically violate Rule Eight (8) and
23
the 50-page order.
24
D. As fully explained below, WHICH defendants are being sued for WHAT and WHY, plus
25
what additional wrongdoings, vandalistic mischief and written ethical violations and/or mail frauds
26
which are continuing today, and which more of are expected during discovery, is also further
27 explained in general terms, below. However, another 50+ SAC pages would be required to be AS
28 1
As related to the incorporation of exhibits and specific PORTIONS of prior pleadings and also the
SAC further clarifies WHO is sued under each cause of action, pages 5-7. ALL 16 defendants are sued
under 21 causes of action, and the other 9 have fewer than all as explained on pages 6-7 under
EXCEPTIONS (to all defendants). The SAC is clearer regarding incorporations by reference, and
has ALREADY been completed, but plaintiff would need 2-3 days to review it a final time and file it.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

3
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
SPECIFIC on the WHYS, as plaintiff was initially in ECF #1, which detail is obviously now
1
impossible with no pages allowed to write it, and only 1.3 pages allowed per cause of action.
2
Therefore, that level of detail will now have to be provided in the upcoming future dispositive
3
motions which defendants are purportedly so eager to file, but which appear to so-far entirely
4
ignore any recognition of the serious RICO allegations now against them.
5
E. Finally, plaintiff will comment at some length about defendants latest motion and new
6 deceptions. Mr. Gans and Kloeppel have further piled-on here and attempted to capitalize on
7 Remingtons obvious innocent (but serious) ministerial error by twisting the knife deeper with the
8 unnecessary addition of several more, Gans-created new mischaracterizations and intentional
9 fallacious frauds. These brand new, Gansian special baked fallacies are discussed below at #4,
10 pages 13-16, and recently are being signed and authenticated under Rule 11 (b) by very long-time,
11 dutiful and loyal associate Mr. Kloeppel, presumably because Mr. Plotz is starting to have some
misgivings or balking, after two years of apprenticing, suborning, enthusiastically participating in,
12
and assisting with serial mail fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury, intentional, unethical fallacious
13
legal reasoning, and improper witness coaching, etc.
14
II. DISCUSSION.
15
A. Attempting to incorporate the entire 1220-page initial complaint was an innocent, stupid
16
oversight which was missed logically, during very cursory proofreading, as per footnote #2, below.
17
Perhaps, as Mr. Gans charges, it was initially an egregious offense creating great
18 confusion, incomprehensibility and prejudice for defendants. Perhaps reading and perfunctorily
19 responding to an extra few hundred pages is very perplexing for defendants, and extremely
20 burdensome, and impossible (See ECF #54 motion to dismiss, page 4: 12, emphasis added).
21 As Mr. Gans notes (and as then presumably authenticated and signed by Mr. Kloeppel),
22 plaintiffs admittedly egregious error is however merely of an easily corrected procedural
23 nature, see ECF #54, ID, page 3:7, emphasis added). Remington fully understands the severity of
his error and that it must be immediately, quickly and very easily corrected, but merely comments
24
that in a more efficient system, a couple of emails to the court and/or a few hours of corrections
25
could have saved a months time and 30-pages of mostly extraneous reading for all concerned.
26
Plaintiff does not usually make such stupid or careless errors of that type, although when
27
pushing 76, it does get a lot easier. In this case, plaintiff does have an explanation as to why this
28
particular error occurred, and will briefly present it in footnote #2 on the next page. Said explanation
is not a good excuse but is an honest statement of what happened and why, as it was literally a
VERY, excited, animated mad-house of frantic activity around here for about 6 weeks. Plaintiff

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

4
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
fully understands that such distractions do not justify the inconvenience and time expended by all
1
over the stupid incorporation by reference mistake2 On the other hand, there IS another world out
2
there, which plaintiff only sees one month per year now, and it is a pity that the parties cannot just
3
get on the phone or send a couple of two sentence emails and make the obvious logical and
4
substantive simple corrections in a matter of a few hours, without unnecessarily wasting the courts
5 time. But, this was too good an opportunity for Mr. Gans to pass-up.
6 B. Because this appears to be basically merely an innocent, admitted, easily corrected
7 procedural error, (per Gans motion, ECF #54, page 3: 7, ID) missed during a too cursory proof-
8 read, plaintiff (initially) expected to keep this opposition much briefer than usual and also intends to
9 file it very early in order to reduce the time wasted by all on this sort of mistake, so that we can move
10 this forward faster, TO TRIAL. Technically, no defendants REPLY memorandum is really needed,
11 although it will be coming, where the principal error has been acknowledged and can be corrected in
two hours, however now there are several additional issues which might as well be fully addressed
12
now, instead of later. One of those additional issues would be the new alleged fraudulent deceptions
13
discussed at D. (page 10+ below), and the other would be the enormous perplexing confusion as to
14
who is being sued in each cause of action, and why that is, because Mr. Gans and defendants
15
following, colluding and/or RICO conspiring attorneys are now attempting to test plaintiff and the
16 courts comprehension of how guilt is assigned and transferred among criminal wrongdoing
17 conspirators, whether state-based or federally RICO implicated. That was all very fully explained
18 in the ECF #1 RICO statement, to a lesser degree in the FAC, however obviously all readers of this
19 document have already done their own RICO and conspiracy research and fully understand aiding
20 and abetting, conspiracy and how crimes of the lower enterprise members can be distributed up
21 the command structure to the Godfather, while criminally implicating all in between.
22 C. WHO is being sued for WHAT and exactly WHY? (See defendants motion page 8:18-

23 page 9:20). Most notably and prejudicially, the FAC fails to identify what claims are asserted
24
2
. Plaintiffs three (3) young, super-energetic, precocious and talented grandchildren from the London
25 suburbs, 2 , 6 and 8 years old, their mother and a substantial number of local girls have been here
now for over a month, descending on our Blackberry Lane property like a circus. Plaintiff has been
26
the ring-master, builder, entertainment director, supervisor and general manager of bungee jumping,
27 zip-lines, Karaoke, tornado experiments, daily trips, charging electric car batteries, putting bicycle
wheels back on, darts, badminton, treasure hunts and at least 100 other things, many potentially and
28 literally dangerous. That visiting overlap with the last week of the FAC edits and continuing through
the weekend of August 20, 2017, and half of this document, has unfortunately affected the quality of
this work. With up to 15 different kids here each day, including at least two with special needs,
there has been a continuous and urgent need for a safety engineer, monitor, chaperone and dispute
manager, for MANY hours per day, all of which are very physical, difficult, but satisfying (and fun).

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

5
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
against what individuals and what conduct each individual is alleged to have done, ID at 8: 20-21.
1
1. Introduction. Plaintiff did his best with his mere 1.3 actual pages per cause of action,
2
including several complex ones, to explain pretty well WHO is being sued and why; however, it
3
would obviously take another 50-150 pages alone to discuss each of the 16 defendants roles in each
4
of 30 different wrongful acts, causes of action, past, present and anticipated future coverups, and
5
related criminal frauds, conspiracies and perjuries, already ongoing at the pleading stage, and
6 expected to be multiplied 5-10 times just during discovery alone. That is precisely why Remingtons
7 initial offering here was 1220 pages, because it was obvious for at least the last year that no
8 intelligible, CLEAR specificity could be written by this plaintiff, if by anyone, about the above 480
9 permutations of those 16 defendants involvement in the 30 generalized causes of action alone,
10 with no viable possibility of analyzing the 3-400 presently known specific, factual wrongful and
11 federal predicate acts committed by various specific defendants, among the 16, and now distributed
among themselves, when the RICO enterprise has been proven. Without another couple hundred
12
pages, all Remington can do now is complain and to refer individual defendants to all of the various
13
filed writings in this case, filed answers and DBRs, and then participate in individual dialogues
14
regarding specific factual allegations against each of the present 16. Attempting to force Remington to
15
cram 480 apples into a small, 8 cube, jewel-box, without compressing them first into applesauce, is
16 in fact impossible in itself, and therefore FULLY explaining the above 144,000 (480 permutations X
17 300 predicate acts and related actionable wrongdoing) possible specific allegations against all 16
18 defendants, in terms of each of 30 causes of action, with varying degrees of responsibility and
19 conspiratorial culpability, is also just not possible for anyone, under these current restrictions.
20 2. Merging of Contamination and RICO defendants.

21 Generally, all alleged RICO enterprise defendants are now responsible for executing
all present and past RICO conspiratorial objectives, including the ongoing cover-up of the
22
initial contaminating encroachment, and related subsequent wrongdoings. Philosophically,
23
considering that all defendants (including the contamination ones) are presently fully
24
relying on the corrupt RICO leadership attorneys to present their defense, (which includes
25
additional fallacious and fraudulent arguments in their every document), plaintiff now sees
26
no substantive difference between almost all causes against all 16 defendants, except for the
27 nine (9) obvious exceptions named below. In other words, the contamination and RICO
28 defendants have now mostly merged together regarding most3, but not all, of the 30 causes of
action. Culpability, deserved punishment and the degree of damages attributable to each defendant
3
The 21 merged causes of action which are now alleged against the contamination and all RICO
defendants, i.e. against all 16 so-far named defendants are: Causes 1-8; 10-14; 17-22; 25 and 28.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

6
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
(see FN #3 and RENZ principles) is of course highly complex and will be determined several years
1
from now after thorough written discovery, extensive independent investigations by plaintiff and
2
probably several criminal authorities, depositions and very detailed trial testimony and analysis.
3
3. Exceptions. The most obvious present (9) exceptions to the general merging of all
4
defendants (as to all causes of action) include: (1)-(2) Obviously the last two RICO causes (#29-30)
5
do not apply yet (pre-Renz) to the new attorneys or pure contamination defendants, themselves, who
6 presently are Joy Mathson, Kishpaugh, Randall and the City of Eureka; however, by the time of trial,
7 their attorneys will probably be deeply, inextricably intermeshed with the corrupt RICO enterprise
8 leadership in the Mitchell firm, and if so, with appropriate culpability according to proof; (3) Also as
9 initially stated in ECF #52, FN #5, Nelsons contract breach (Cause #26) is not alleged to involve the
10 contamination defendants, and whether it was caused by the RICO defendants will not be fully known
11 until at least after discovery. LIKEWISE, the Gans and Mathson contract violations, ONLY involves
THEM, presently; (4) Similarly, Cause #27 (tortious contract breach) presently only implicates
12
Nelson and the RICO defendants, and not yet Joy Mathson, Kishpaugh, Randall or the City; (5) Also,
13
as initially stated and subject to extensive discovery, Cause #9, VPWA, is presently alleged, based on
14
pre-discovery knowledge, only against the RAO defendants and the Mathsons, however imminent
15
RICO enterprise leadership involvement by Gans, Kloeppel, Brisso, Plotz and others would be
16 anticipated, as soon as discovery begins; (6) Cause #24 (Sanctions for extensive evidence spoliation)
17 presently only implicates the Mathsons, Gans and the RICO defendants but not yet the RAO
18 defendants, Nelson, Kishpaugh, Randall or the City; (7) Cause #16 (Negligence per se) is so far only
19 alleged against all contamination defendants, but not the RICO defendants; (8) Cause #23 (felony
20 vandalism) implicates ALL contamination and RICO defendants at least indirectly to varying
21 degrees, EXCEPT for the CITY, at this point; (9) Finally, Cause #15 (strict liability) is alleged
22 against all defendants except for Kishpaugh and Randall, based on current information.
23 4. Renz decision. By the time of trial, one of the most crucial decisions to be made by this
court involves whether to follow the teachings of the 6th California State district, in H011907,
24
39 Cal App. 4Th 63, Renz v. 33rd District Agricultural Assn, and extend all damages through the
25
date of trial and appeals, NOT merely for three (3) years prior to filing. This case has considerable
26
judicial support, following and excellent, efficient legal reasoning (IF you are a continuing
27
nuisance and trespass litigant or judge), regarding how to expedite continuing nuisance and trespass
28 cases, and make them reasonable and tolerable to the parties, without tying-up court resources for

numerous redundant trials, over huge numbers of years.

5. Detailed responses to defendants motion objections, criticisms and ridicule regarding

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

7
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
the subtleties of who is sued for what and why.
1
Preface: Plaintiff next responds n detail to defendants specific both valid and specious
2
objections, at their pages 8-9, ID, beginning at page 8: 23, ID. Since defendants objected to plaintiffs
3
subjective qualifications (at FN 5, ECF #52, pages 11-1) regarding who was exempted from each
4
cause of action, therefore the 21 causes of action in FN #2 above, are now directed towards ALL
5
defendants, whereas the other 9 are restricted per the EXCEPTIONS on page 7 above.
6 a. Plaintiffs initial comment: Plaintiff stands by his initial FAC FN #5, unless the court
7 grants 10+ more pages or designates specific extraneous sentences, paragraphs or other words now
8 in the FAC to delete to make extra room. It would appear that the best plan now would be for
9 individual defendants to answer, and then at that time plaintiff will happily provide as much
10 original detail back individually is needed, when he has at least 25 answering pages per each of
11 16 defendants, unless someone has a better idea.
12 b. On several occasions, plaintiff confusingly and incomprehensively qualifies the foregoing
statement. As examples, plaintiffs fourth claim is against all covering-up defendants (cite), ID,
13
page 9:3. Plaintiffs comment: This well-taken objection by Mr. Gans and sloppy FAC
14
passage is presently inaccurate, incomplete and ambiguous and should say in the SAC: The
15
4th Claim is against all contamination and RICO covering-up defendants4. Note the addition of
16
the words contamination and RICO. Further note, that in the SAC itself NOW, when it is
17 approved by this court, the passage now actually reads an even simpler version of the above: (4th
18 Claim is) against ALL of the present 16 defendants.
19 c. At defendants line 4, page 9, ID: plaintiffs Sixth claim against all contamination and RICO
20 covering-up defendants was perfectly accurate, but in the SAC is enhanced to ALL defendants.
21 d. Line 5 is admittedly somewhat overly sophisticated and ambiguous, but in the FAC there were
22 no available lines or words to clarify and define what PRP means here and its significance. Suffice to
23 say now, that the 1998 Principal Responsible Parties (PRP) were and still are: the two Mathsons;
three RAO defendants; Kishpaugh, Randall and the City, or eight (8) total. For anyone taking this
24
very seriously, or that is genuinely confused and does not fully understand this concept, the PRPs
25
would be equal and identical to the eight (8) contamination defendants cited in footnote #2.
26
27 . The court should note that the contamination defendants are: John and Joy Mathson; the three
4

RAO defendants; Kishpaugh; Randall and the City of Eureka, sued, due to the alleged possible
28 wrongdoing of their former employee Davis, in contract with Olson and RAO Construction, 8 total.
The RICO defendants are: Russell Gans, John Mathson, the three RAO defendants (Olson,
Skillings and RAO Construction, now all in default); Plotz; Brisso; Gilbride; Kloeppel; The Mitchell
firm; Lawrence and Nelson, 12 total. That is a total of 16 individual defendants with four (4)
overlapping into both groups: John Mathson, Rich Olson, Kyle Skillings and RAO Construction.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

8
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
However, in the SAC, Remington dumbed-it down, substantially to ALL, with contamination
1
and RICO defendants merged for clarity, without pages for long explanations THERE, like here.
2
e. Lines 6-7, ID: The Eighth claim WAS against Gans, John Mathson, Olson, Skillings,
3
Kishpaugh, and other RICO defendants currently aiding and abetting (cite). Further information on this
4
VWPA claim and how it is actually conspiratorially involved with the RICO conspiracy remains to be
5
discovered. For now, what that means is that ALL defendants are allegedly potentially implicated
6
with only Joy Mathson and Randall conceivably exempted based on current information. However, it
7 now seems likely that the attorneys will drag even those two into the primary RICO conspiracy or
8 related, subsidiary aiding and abetting conspiracies before long, and also could have happened a year
9 ago, so its more efficient and clearer now to anticipate the next few months discovered an
10 investigatory information somewhat, and lump all 16 defendants together into all now, on the
11 eighth claim, and then possibly separate-out or exonerate two or three defendants from the others on a
12 few of the 30 causes of action, during or after trial, (rather than have to make numerous additions).
13 f. Lines 8-9: As has been clearly explained elsewhere, the Ninth cause for False Claims Act
violations is obviously only asserted, at the present time based on positive knowledge, against both
14
Mathsons and all RAO defendants. Subsequent discovery and RICO-coverups during and after
15
discovery and at a trial, will probably expand this cause to include at least Mr. Gans, Lawrence and
16
perhaps others. In other words, we have no specific, positive factual information yet beyond those
17
named, however plaintiff has observed with his own eyes over the last 15 years that such violations
18 have occurred as to the Mathsons and RAO, and now we just need to gather the positive accounting
19 and real estate development financial and deed evidence to prove it. Further, as discussed below in
20 the following section, the phraseology, false quotes and pretended confusion employed here by
21 defendants attorneys was another attempted intentional fraudulent deception perpetrated on this
22 court, as defendants must know by now that its not working very reliably on Remington.
23 g. Lines 9-10: Rather obviously, the Eleventh Cause of Action is against ALL contamination
defendants and RICO defendants cooperating in the contamination, (cover-up and RICO objectives,
24
(emphasis added). As addressed in the next section under deliberate fraudulent deceptions,
25
defendants attorneys attempted to make this incomprehensible to the court by deliberately leaving out
26
(dropping)the last four words of the quote, rendering it essentially unintelligible. As to the response
27
here, the phrase as actually written in the FAC cannot be any clearer, and obviously includes ALL 16
28
named defendants, to whatever degree of individual culpability the facts eventually prove at trial. The
SAC just plainly and even SIMPLER merely alleges this cause against ALL defendants.
h. Line 11: The Twelfth claim (for continuing nuisance) is clearly stated and obviously now against

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

9
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
all contamination defendants and RICO enterprise members, i.e., ALL 16 named defendants.
1
i. Thirteenth cause. Lines 11-13 could use further direct specificity, which has been provided
2
in the SAC. As written, it is clearly against all contamination and RICO cover-up defendants,
3
which is really all that plaintive is responsible for alleging at this stage. As no good deed goes
4
unpunished, every time Remington attempts to provide further notice clarification, it gets
5
complicated, ridiculed, ignored and/or works strongly against plaintiff because it is then
6 confusing. A SAC will likely designate 489 as being the appropriate qualifying passage in the
7 1220-page complaint, which merely alleges that the Mathsons and RAO are 98% responsible for
8 the primary contamination, however under RICO, that may not make any difference to a jury, who
9 may decide to assess responsibility equally or maybe mostly to Gans personally, but thats not
10 plaintiffs call, and his opinion is that those 98% responsible for the contamination should have a
11 very substantial responsibility and a majority of to making things right by removing said
contamination. In other words, the alleged wrongdoers here are perfectly clear and if anything
12
Remington will just delete his helpful passages, where more information can be found if
13
anyone is interested. Because plaintiffs preference is to provide all available information including
14
more than enough information, as opposed to insufficient information, defendants can expect that
15
during discovery plaintiff will define terms, make appropriate qualifications as he deems fair and
16 reasonable to explain his damages and amelioration requests.
17 j. Line 14: the 15th claim as against all contamination defendants and...RICO defendants
18 (cite). Once again, Mr. Gans takes enormous liberties with his quotation marks, word order, and
19 plaintiffs entire meaning, but his makes up for his deletions, and as far as who was alleged to
20 have done what, at this stage at least, Gans 15-20 deleted words here will not be quibbled about.
21 In other words, in plaintiffs opinion, WHO Claim #15 is against could not be written any clearer,
accurately or more concisely. However, note that the present wording includes the present RICO
22
enterprise members, including probable potentially new member-attorneys and/or clients who
23
may by the time of a trial eventually attempt to join-in the RICO responsibility for the original 1998
24
and subsequent crimes of the enterprise, under RICO law and the cited state laws. Note also that
25
in the SAC, plaintiff has currently exempted Kishpaugh and Randall, for just, good reasons.
26
k. Lines 15-18: Defendants disingenuously ignore the lengthy FN #9 which explains exactly
27
what Remington has done and may potentially do in the future. Since Beach-Day-Wilson are not
28
named on the cover or anywhere else as present RICO defendants, in the next revision of the FAC,
perhaps their names will be (should be, and WERE in the SAC) eliminated from Page 36 of the
FAC, at this particular time; however, as explained, plaintiff wishes to discuss this and many

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

10
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
other similar issues with the court at the status conference, because ultimately decisions of that
1
nature will be out of Remingtons hands. Perhaps obvious and blatant violations of Rule 11 and
2
CCP 128.7 are commonplace here in this court, and unworthy of comment and emphasis.
3
Obviously the modern ethics, or lack thereof, of many California attorneys are not old-school
4
or what plaintiff is used to or comfortable with, however in plaintiffs substantial experience,
5 unethical California attorneys are not normal and would be less than 10% numerically, in
6 plaintiffs opinion. In any case, plaintiff is good at spotting and highlighting Mr. Gans (and any,
7 especially RICO-related) ethical anomalies or challenges, and how this court wants to handle
8 perceived false or perjured statements, fallacies, deceptions, etc., after that is presently unknown.
9 l. Finally, at defendants page 9: 18-20, ID: Plaintiff has little doubt that Mr. Gans and Kloeppel

10 are very highly perplexed about plaintiffs inconsistent and unintelligible discussions of who
11 the contamination and RICO defendants are and why they are all being sued in many if not
most of the causes of action. Plaintiff believes that here and in the proposed SAC, he has greatly
12
simplified defendants quandary about who was being sued for what and which defendants should
13
respond to which rambled and baseless assertion, by suggesting that all 16 reply to the 21
14
designated above, with the nine (9) exceptions as explained on page 7 above and in the FAC and/or
15
SAC. That would seem to be appropriate, unless someone can prove they are not RICO enterprise
16 members and therefore should only have to reply to the contamination allegations. Again, all this is
17 merely plaintiffs opinion, and hopefully the court will weigh-in specifically on some of these
18 issues, so that this Pro Se litigant can satisfy said court, because clearly defendants are never
19 going to be satisfied with any articulation by plaintiff of his contamination or RICO allegations.
20 m. Additionally, it would seem to be prudent for all RICO enterprise members to respond to all

21 relevant causes of action, whereas the pure contamination defendants may have potentially less
exposure initially. However, it is obviously unknowable today what financial responsibility at trial
22
each defendant will have before discovery and the expected masses of perjured discovery
23
responses, motion statements and declarations, which are already reaching epidemic proportions.
24
For example, the comments by the City in defendants FN #6, page 9, Motion, ID are at a
25
minimum intentionally deceptive and WRONG, according to plaintiffs written documents which
26
are strongly believed to be accurate. Said FN #6 statements are not yet sworn or perjured but as
27 soon as the court allows discovery to begin, plaintiff has a variety of Special Interrogatories and
28 RFAs to get some of these false statements on the record as soon as possible, before defendants
decide to take a few minutes to check their facts a little bit. This issue would ordinarily be further
clarified in the next section, except that, as above, Remington needs to behave more like

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

11
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
defendants and not reveal all of his information and high cards, or ANYTHING, up-front, just like
1
Mr. Gans does who reveals virtually nothing in discovery, uses GREAT surprise at trial and also is
2
very inconsistent at trial with what was revealed in Special Interrogatories, Depositions and RFAs.
3
D. There are at least 5-6 new, materially significant mischaracterizations, and what
4
plaintiff considers to be fraudulent deceptions, in these latest defendants documents.
5
1. Introduction. These new documents are signed by Mr. Kloeppel, who has apparently taken
6
over the administrative, ethical and dirty-work responsibilities from Mr. Plotz, who had done most
7 of the nasty writing for the last two years, as far as signing his name to what Mr. Gans has obviously
8 drafted. It has become quite clear that Mr. Plotz is having some kind of moral misgivings about
9 signing onto everything that Gans writes for him, whereas Mr. Kloeppel is almost twice as old and
10 apparently will sign almost anything, because only Mr. Gans is believed to be able to write the
11 objectionable, fallacious material discussed below, because it is his nature. After reading about
12 10,000 pages by Mr. Gans and responding with at least 20,000 pages, his unethical, deceptive
13 style is absolutely unmistakable, as he literally cannot help himself in small ways as well as
HUGE ways, when it comes to attempting to honestly characterize any Remington case issue. After
14
10+ years, Remington is very insightful and sensitive to Mr. Gans very unique illogic and writing
15
style, and his original work or edits (of Plotz previously) are totally unmistakable to plaintiff.
16
Plaintiff is not being angry, nasty, vitriolic or vicariously making personal insults and
17
character attacks, as Mr. Gans again complains on his page 7: 15, ID. Gans does not specifically
18
refer to what passages in the FAC are now offensive to him, however in a RICO complaint with
19 several hundred alleged criminal violations and many related collusive and conspiratorial
20 wrongful acts, most of which are directly attributable to his personal RICO leadership and
21 management, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible for a pro se litigant and victim, to
22 present the facts without some sort of an honest factual description, which Mr. Gans would
23 undoubtably find offensive, as would any accused criminal, presumably. Further, as to Mr. Gans
current FN #4, page 7: 24-26, ID, Plaintiffs response is clearly found at FAC page 36: 24-30, and
24
no other comment is presently made, except that actual perjury and extortion can hardly be
25
characterized as a vitriolic personal attack, because sometimes the actual, honest objective facts
26
are rather harsh, and plaintiff is not good at platitudes, subterfuge or sugarcoating. Plaintiffs
27
belief is that: IF some case material fact or truth can be proven, it is by definition necessary, not
28
improper and not legally offensive, impermissible or malicious. In other words, if it is true and
provable, it cannot be improper here. As always, Plaintiff remains ready to swear under penalty
of perjury either orally or in writing to any fact or opinion, as long as it is properly characterized,

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

12
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
which he writes in these motion documents,. Further, as asserted previously, Mr. Gans is only rarely
1
willing to swear to the truth of his actual statements or facts, in about one page of every 500-1000.
2
Gans has good reasons for that, and plaintiff has quite a few of his declaration passages to use at his
3
next deposition. Only very rarely does Mr. Gans ever swear to anything more than the authenticity
4
of a document, so when he departs from that principle, it is ordinarily quite extraordinary. That is
5 just honest, scientific fact, based on more than 10+ years of studying Mr. Gans written documents
6 and deposition styles, and material relevant facts are not vitriolic, malicious, unfair or false, etc.
7 2. Specific, new objectionable false, deceptive mischaracterizations, or worse, by Mr. Gans
8 as signed by Mr. Kloeppel:
9 A. Page 3: lines 7-12, ECF #54 motion, ID. Defendants acknowledge the procedural nature
10 of the instant motion, but ask the court to recall that certain of these defendants have already fully
11 and comprehensively litigated two prior civil actions to final judgment on the merits, as well as the
disposition of numerous unfounded administrative complaints to environmental and resource
12
agencies, emphasis added here. Plaintiff vehemently challenges the accuracy of that passage.
13
1. First, have two actions been litigated to final judgment on the merits? Plaintiff thinks not.
14
Perhaps one but certainly not two!
15
The first federal case CV 094547 NJV was dismissed at Summary Judgment due to a
16
Draconian Rule 37 (c) evidentiary sanction eliminating all plaintiffs evidence, caused by a Rule 26
17
failure, and although technically on the merits it was not sufficiently so to justify collateral
18 estoppel in state case DR080678. Judge Vadas specifically set aside the two (then) state cases for a
19 contested contamination jury trial, where we held all of the cards and irrefutable expert evidence.
20 So much so, that Mr. Gans dropped his frivolous state case DR 080669 and had to drastically cheat,
21 obstruct and defraud, at the 2016 SOL trial, to side-track DR 080678 and send it now to the state
22 appellate court. So far, CV 094547 NJV is the only case decided here supposedly on the merits,
23 as DR080678 is currently being appealed, with every expectations of a WIN; DR140426 is
currently stayed, although that is probably also an error, again supposedly based upon mistaken (or
24
fraudulent) representations of collateral estoppel from the 2009 federal case. There can be no
25
legitimate collateral estoppel where every single significant variable and scientific test since 2008
26
is brand new, different and the encroachment has universally been determined by all experts to be
27
continuing, with damages recoverable for the previous three years only ; Defendants offensive
28 case DR080669, has been dropped and since the 2016 severance hearing actions, also has been

fully proven to have been frivolous from its inception, although that perhaps is merely plaintiffs
subjective judgment. In other words, plaintiff rejects the notion that two prior civil actions have

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

13
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
been comprehensively litigated to final judgment on the merits, or AT ALL, as that statement is
1
entirely inaccurate, and is a FALSE summary of the last 10 years of this litigation.
2
2. More objectionable and false however is the next statement that as well as the disposition
3
of numerous unfounded administrative complaints to environmental and resource agencies,
4
emphasis added. Although, when Gans makes fraudulent mischaracterizations he usually writes
5
them in a similar slightly unintelligible style, which could be construed as literary nonsense,
6 however here there is a strong fictional, negative and fraudulent inference against Remington in
7 every aspect of that sentence. In any case, the actual, accurate facts are as follows:
8 (a) The inference is that Remington made numerous unfounded administrative complaints
9 against the Mathsons to someone, however what would those be, and WHO to, exactly? Who are
10 those environmental and resource agencies and what is unfounded about a 2 million pound
11 hazardous materials trespassing encroachment in the middle of your yard? Plaintiff properly served
notice on defendants and a few others in his federal complaints, with zero effect on defendants to
12
date, and the only other environmental, or any known complaint that he has ever filed against
13
defendants (other than frequently to Sheriffs deputies about Mathsons continuous vandalisms, and
14
imminently to the DA about this RICO enterprise) was to the Humboldt County Health Department.
15
BOTH investigators from that Department told plaintiff that: (absolutely) the hazardous materials
16 deposited by defendants on both properties would have to be removed; and, then against strong
17 headwinds and apparently great pressure, Maje Hoyos eventually investigated and studied
18 Remingtons property intensively for several years and concluded that the local Health Department
19 agency is not qualified to, motivated or inclined to supervise remediation of either property, and
20 therefore SHE and Ms. Martel, et al, referred the case to the Northern Regional Water Quality
21 Control Board, where it still remains today, and inferentially is under pressure from these RICO
defendants to take no immediate actions, or possibly there are also other reasons for no action yet.
22
(b) Conversely, Mr. Gans has projected onto plaintiff what they themselves did, which
23
was to make between 30-40 unfounded complaints to every Northcoast local state and national
24
environmental and resources agency (over 35, as per the colored graphic trial charts of ECF #1,
25
Volume #2), which harassed plaintiff and wasted a tremendous amount of his time for more than a
26
year. In other words, that statement is false, misleading, defamatory, intentionally deceptive and most
27 offensively falsely accuses plaintiff of doing what they did themselves very extensively in 2008,
28 causing plaintiff extreme emotional distress, plus he was very severely burned in fighting the

suspicious fire in September 2008.

B. GansPage 9: 8-9, ID: The Ninth claim is asserted against RICO coverups, among other

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

14
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
named defendants (ID at pg 18, ln 22). That intentionally false characterization is total nonsense
1
and is obviously deliberate, inferring that Remington is an idiot (pro se) for writing that Gans
2
nonsense! Is there any reader here that thinks plaintiff is dumb enough to write that unintelligible
3
gibberish or that Gans mistakenly wrote that false misstatement accidentally and not deliberately?
4
Gans transparent motive is nothing less than to repeat his illicit success in the Judge
5
Vadas court by constantly criticizing and demeaning plaintiff and questioning his integrity,
6 until this court loses patience, become seriously annoyed with plaintiff and thereafter just
7 dismisses his case, once again on some minor technical provocation, unconnected to the merits.
8 1. What was plaintiffs actual accurate statement in his FAC, on his page 18? VERY
9 DIFFERENT!
10 It read: [Ninth cause of action] against the Mathsons and RAO defendants, pending
11 discovery and RICO cover-ups. Gans nonsensical statement above (HIS motion, lines 8-9), put
12 in false quotes as usual, as though that was how Remington actually wrote it, is another
mischaracterization and intentional attempt to render plaintiffs writing absurd and unintelligible.
13
Mr. Gans is good at that, does it a lot and it is one of the 75 or so Wikipedia named fallacies, and Mr.
14
Gans uses the majority of them, as previously noted. Plaintiff has no patience for them anymore.
15
2. The court and Mr. Gans RICO enterprise co-conspirators should recall that it was not long
16
ago that Mr. Gans flagrantly, drastically and self-servingly rewrote a FEDERAL Judges (Vadas)
17
very material Summary Judgment ORDER (and dicta) regarding EPCRA, feloniously putting it in
18 false quotation marks, and then repeated that and other false quotes, more than 15 times in several
19 critical 2015 state motions5 . That was major, material fraud which easily could have illicitly and
20 fraudulently won the case for Mr. Gans right then and there, had plaintiff not eventually (after
21 about two weeks) checked-out the exact quote, and discovered that it was a very polished and clever
22 justice-obstructing plagiarism or counterfeited opinion by Gans. Simply put, Mr. Gans wrote an
23 additional 10 or more words, that he wished the federal judge had said, but which words it had
not said or written, nor were the meaning of or the correct REAL words of the actual court order
24
anything even remotely close to what Gans self-servingly wrote for said Judge Vadas.
25
5
This entire issue was briefed HERE, in Plaintiffs Opposition to Sanctions Motion, filed July 5,
26
2017, ECF #36 and his Amended Request for Judicial Notice, ECF #46, filed 7/8/17. Exhibit #8 of
27 that lengthy filing entitled OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DECEMBER 2014 COLLATERAL
ESTOPPEL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, on page 1 specifically addresses that plagiarism
28 and false quotes of a federal judge issue and CRIME by Mr. Gans, which was echoed by his
apprentice Mr. Plotz. If the court is interested in this issue, plaintiff filed at least another related 50
pages in state court, mostly under penalty of perjury, on the issue during that Summary Judgment
proceeding, including several sworn oppositions to Separate Statements, two DBRs, etc. That
frivolous 2015 Summary Judgment was eventually resoundingly DENIED, by Judge Reinholtsen.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

15
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
3. Similarly, and as above, the correct statement as actually written by plaintiff in the FAC, was:
1
[Ninth cause of action. against the Mathsons and RAO defendants, pending discovery and
2
RICO cover-ups. That statement was pretty simple (and wise) in the FAC, and sufficiently clear to
3
leave it as written in the SAC. It definitely (presently) limits that cause to five (5) present defendants
4
at most until more information is discovered, but definitely reserves the right to add Mr. Gans, the
5 RICO leadership and perhaps others, when Mr. Gans begins his anticipated inevitable cover-up of
6 whatever facts are discovered, especially regarding the Mathsons. If and when the latter event occurs,
7 then the pending RICO cover-ups clause would activate and undoubtably implicate the RICO
8 leadership and then at least the entire RICO enterprise in that False Claim cause.
9 4. Mr. Gans was very devious, creative and inventive to get from the correct text to his above

10 quote at his lines 8-9, page 9, where, once again he falsely wrote ([The Ninth claim] is asserted
11 against RICO coverups, among other named defendants. Plaintiff never gets tired of considering
how Mr. Gans takes just enough of plaintiffs own words to appear sincere, ethical and plausible, but
12
then juxtapositions them to make Remington look like an idiot, while Mr. Gans patiently notes
13
how severely prejudiced he was by plaintiffs (unspoken, but clearly understood) pro se lunacy,
14
and also KNOWS that most courts will accept his version without researching it, and sooner or later
15
will (hopefully) get impatient enough with pro se Remington to kick him out of court.
16 C. Page 9:10. AS ABOVE, This is yet another intentional Gans attempt to confuse the court
17 and render plaintiffs writing absurd, utterly incomprehensible, and to infer plaintiff is an idiot that
18 does not belong in this court with real legitimate attorneys. Gans (again) writes, always
19 intentionally (as what he does is very skilled, very SMART, highly sophisticated and far-beyond
20 plaintiffs ordinary honest literary abilities): The Eleventh claim is against all contamination
21 defendants and RICO defendants cooperating in the contamination (Id at pg 19, ln 28+). That is
simply-put another intentional exceptionally false quote, rendered entirely unintelligible!
22
The actual passage as written by plaintiff in the FAC is: ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION for
23
statutory contribution from all contamination defendants and RICO defendants cooperating in the
24
contamination cover-up and RICO objectives, emphasis added. Note that Gans dropping of
25
those last four words entirely changes the meaning of the sentence, rendering it absurd and entirely
26
unintelligible in the Gans version. Since Mr. Gans is the officer of the court, it is plaintiff that
27 becomes the idiot step-child, not Gans. Plaintiff MUST highlight these fallacious frauds.
28 Further note, that in the SAC, plaintiff stopped trying to explain, qualify precisely and add
subtle meanings, regarding who these causes are against, and now (in the proposed SAC) just
alleges that Statutory Contribution (11th Claim) is against ALL defendants. Other qualifications and

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

16
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
details can be introduced, later during the next technical attempts to end this before merits are reached.
1
3. ADDITIONAL FACTUAL, ETHICAL AND RICO-RELATED ERRORS AND FRAUDULENT
2
DECEPTIONS, from Defendants August 15 Motion to Dismiss, page 8: lines 1-3 and lines 7-10, ID.
3
A. Lines 1-3. Any such excuses and justifications are absurd. Plaintiff fully understands the
4
effect of incorporation by reference.... None of that is true and all of it was false when written.
5
Plaintiff now understands that incorporating the 1220-page pleading into this FAC WAS ABSURD,
6 but as fully explained in detail below, making that error initially was fully in good faith and plaintiff
7 has a perfectly good explanation in this instance. In other words, said full understanding did not
8 occur until late in the evening on August 15, 2017 when plaintiff read and considered defendants
9 latest motion, and more specifically when he saw the state courts surprising December 2015 ORDER
10 for the first time, in defendants Request for Judicial Notice as explained below. [Until then, plaintiff
11 DID justifiably believe that he could incorporate entire complaints by reference because the
precedent had been set in state court, and it had seemed reasonable to plaintiff previously]
12
B. Lines 7-10. This is just another one of several hundred false deceptive defendants statements
13
or what plaintiff likes to call in plain vernacular, simply a LIE The trial court did not sustain Gans
14
demurrer but plainly DENIED 7 out of 8 requests, so it is not a 100% LIE, but merely an
15
87.5% LIE. Perhaps a minor and insignificant matter to defendants and the court, but not to plaintiff6.
16
The true facts and procedural history are as follows:
17
1. Mr. Gans very intentionally and deliberately Judicially Noticed the wrong document, a
18
Motion to Strike Order in this court on August 15, 2017 because the right one, the DENIAL of
19
7/8 of Gans DEMURRER request, is prejudicial to him and grossly contradicts many of his
20 false narratives, presented now and in his future dispositive dismissal motions.
21 2. Gans page 8: 7-10, ID reads: the trial court sustained defendants demurrer to the first
22 amended complaint with leave to amend... (and then in inimitable fallacious fraudulent
23 fashion added two true statements to the initial false one, which does not make the false
24
Believe it or not, plaintiff has plenty of much bigger, better and more important things to do than
6

25 harp on all of Gans continuous deceptive litigation practices which are obviously intentionally
intended to unethically prejudice Remington, waste his time and this courts in order to bias said court
26
against the obnoxious pro se, (for writing so many pages), exactly as occurred with Judge Vadas,
27 previously. As has been partially explained previously, as best a 20-40,000 page record can be
summarized here, Judge Reinholtsen mostly ignored Gans false deceptions and DENIED at least 8-
28 10 (i.e., ALL) of his last continuous, successive requests for monetary sanctions against plaintiff in
every motion, however, eventually after almost 120-continuous three hour days of these pre-trial
skirmishes, said judge surprisingly succumbed to the false logic, fallacies and untruths which
constituted MIL #20, previously addressed at length in this court by Request for Judicial Notice. Why
that happened has been alluded to, still remains to be fully discovered and is beyond the scope here.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

17
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
one true, emphasis added). [Logically: Two truths plus one LIE do not equal a truthful conclusion].
1
3. But unfortunately, the truth is that Gans demurrer was DENIED, as above on basically
2
7 of the 8 counts, which in plaintiffs world means it was virtually totally denied, especially in
3
view of the fact that all of plaintiff's important and substantive causes of action were fully left
4
intact, and the 7th morphed into 3-4 others. A partial granting is really only a very partial truth in
5
this proceeding.
6 4. The correct document which Mr. Gans wanted to attach but did not, because as anyone
7 can plainly see, the CORRECT entire state ORDER is not helpful to his positions here, and is the
8 state Judge Reinholtsens ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO FIRST
9 AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed 5/29/2015. The wrong (deceptive in plaintiffs opinion)
10 document Judicially Noticed by defendants on August 15, 2017 was the ORDER REGARDING
11 THE MOTION TO STRIKE REMINGTONS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed
12 12/22/2015.
13 5. Plaintiff Remington has Judicially Noticed the correct document herewith. This accurate
Demurrer document, which ethically should have been provided by Gans, but was not, as can
14
plainly be seen on page 7, merely granted one minor demurrer to Gans out of eight, as the 7th
15
was multiplied into several OTHERS! That partial granting of essentially only 12% of what was
16
requested does not render Mr. Gans deceptive 1/8th truth statement at line 7 less than a deliberate
17
fraudulent deception, intended to prejudice plaintiff in this court. Minor, and not a direct LIE,
18 perhaps, but see plaintiffs statement requesting clarification in the conclusion section. Where does
19 this court draw the line? Plaintiff finds any material mischaracterizations, misrepresentations or
20 LIES in a judicial forum, to be offensive, very damaging usually and potentially case terminating,
21 as per his 2009 federal magistrate case. Said corrupt fallacies, lies and material mischaracterizations
22 are also time-consuming to highlight, discuss and refute if necessary, and ordinarily Remington
23 DOES find it necessary to do so.
6. Lines 16-17: (SAC) which Mr. Remington has not yet filed because that litigation was and
24
is stayed, emphasis added. HOW does Gans know why, why not, (because) plaintiff did
25
something, especially here where he knows that his characterization is wrong, false and based on
26
further state courthouse felonies, and that no one understands that true situation better than he does?!
27
7. Again, what are the true facts as best they are known today?
28
(a) Until last week on August 15, 2017 Remington believed that his state SAC, with a 309-
page exhibit of a prior complaint heavily edited to be merely a factual supplementary exhibit, had
been filed and accepted by the state court, and therefore plaintiff employed the same apparently

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

18
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
successful and appropriate method automatically again here. If it was accepted in state court,
1
probably (or perhaps) it would also be acceptable here, although plaintiff now also understands,
2
that might well not be the case. In any event, as far as plaintiff understood and believed, that
3
complaint was acceptable and the case, DR140426, had been stayed, and was under the control of a
4
new judge (Wilson), plaintiff has never met and where plaintiff has never appeared or ever been
5 given any notice of any hearing or any acknowledgment of any document submitted there or the
6 results from any hearing.
7 (b) In view of the above, Remington was shocked to read defendants August 15, 2017
8 Judicially Noticed document attaching a December 2015 order from Judge Reinholtsen denying his
9 SAC with some other instructions, which plaintiff had never seen! That document is not in
10 plaintiffs files and presumably Remington was once again taken off the courts service list as
11 happens periodically, an average of about once a year. In any case, as alleged in great detail in ECF
#1, Gans has one or more spies, agents or saboteurs working in the Humboldt County
12
Courthouse, who, since 2008, frequently have blocked mailings from the court or scattered
13
Remingtons documents around the courthouse, or returned them to him when its too late to get
14
them to the judge for a hearing, etc. Over the past nine (9) years numerous other detrimental and/or
15
horrible permutations have also occurred, and see e.g. RICO Statement pages 245-251, ECF #1 for
16 more information regarding the crucial RICO DOE defendant (the courthouse saboteur), we are
17 still attempting to investigate and locate.
18 (c) Therefore, Remington was not contemporaneously aware of that December decision or that
19 the practice of attaching an entire, large, prior pleading which had been specially-edited as an
20 appendix was improper; and, on the contrary, Remington was led to believe for almost 2 years
21 now that that procedure was proper. Plaintiff now understands that attaching an entire prior
pleading is stupid and egregious error, however he denies that he is likely to further argue
22
(that a pro se should be able to get away with anything), nor are his excuses and
23
justifications absurd, under the above circumstances.
24
But for the accidental fact that DR140426 was stayed, also at a surprise hearing, where
25
Remington was never noticed or ever sent the results of same either, despite a form statement
26
from the court saying that the results or outcome of the hearing would be sent to plaintiff, by
27 someone who never did it, despite several plaintiff phone calls to the court and two written requests
28 to do so. None of that is especially relevant here, and in due course, when these federal proceedings

have been clarified and the state collateral estoppel issue has been fully repudiated, either here
or in state appellate court, there will be plenty of time to reinitiate DR140426 or more likely

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

19
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
plaintiff will file a more updated and correct new successive action case, before a judge, likely not
1
yet even on the bench, who is not yet ethically challenged or under the RICO enterprises influence,
2
and who possibly even insists on true facts, and in any case will not accept faked facts,
3
counterfeited evidence, illogical fallacies, sophisms, prejudicial deceptions or an unverified
4
officer of the courts word for any important material case fact.
5
(d) Plaintiff also expressly objects to Gans motion, ECF #34, page 2, FN #1, which was
6 apparently thrown in at the last minute by the city based on entirely erroneous information, as was
7 FN #6, pages 9-10, already addressed above. Due to the large amount of false material in this latest
8 defendants motion, plaintiff requests that all future motions and oppositions should be signed
9 under penalty of perjury, and if so, there would be 95% less motions filed.
10 As to FN #1, that is simply-put just another intentional, major, material error by the City

11 according to all of plaintiffs present information, which is believed to be eminently reliable, and
beyond question. Remington is not going to explain what his documented facts are until the City
12
has taken their current odd position in RFAs, Special Interrogatories and/or other definitive,
13
supposedly accurate writings subject to Rule 11. However, at this stage, plaintiff does comment to
14
the court that the City is really acting erratically, and like Mr. Nelsons attorneys appear to NOT
15
take this case seriously at all, or even be willing to take just a few minutes to get their basic facts
16 straight; however, when the City files their imminent dispositive motion to quash, perhaps
17 plaintiff will present part of his information. Meanwhile, the City is progressively acting
18 increasingly suspiciously and rather than just acknowledging the simple, innocent facts, if they
19 honestly believe they are innocent. Instead they have been progressively burying themselves
20 deeper in false statements and incorrect unsubstantiable facts, when plaintiff had initially assumed
21 and written TO THEM in April-May that they could or would likely be, and probably should have
been out of the case, at least by this time. Inferentially, their attorneys are going to run-up a
22
substantial legal tab before they do the obvious as suggested by plaintiff in writing, four months
23
ago, including also in ECF #1.
24
(e) ERROR admitted. Despite All of these new issues and objections raised by plaintiff
25
herein, as above, Remington is still WRONG here overall, but innocently in part, as he was
26
partially duped by Gans Courthouse saboteur, primarily, once again, or by other related factors
27 into believing that his incorrect incorporation by reference, of entire prior edited complaints as
28 factual encyclopedic references, method was correct, because it had survived in state court for
about two years. As explained, Plaintiff held that apparently erroneous view, right up until August
15, 2017 when he received ECF #54, which was very surprising. Also as explained above,

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

20
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
defendants deceptive manner of dealing with this issue has morphed what could have been a one
1
page apology and response into 15-pages largely addressing their unethical and deceptive tactics
2
here, and now 22+ pages.
3
E. Rule 10 (b) & (c) permits the incorporation of specific prior pleading material
4
incorporated by reference. All known caselaw, federal rules and treatises researched by plaintiff
5
concluded that notice can be given to defendants of extraneous matter, above the prescribed page
6 limits, by incorporating specific direct and explicit portions of any kind of pertinent exhibit,
7 including previous pleadings. Plaintiff has already eliminated all general and improper references
8 to the 1220-page pleading in his proposed SAC and made all factual pleading references very
9 specific, explicit and directly on point.
10 1. Rule 10 (c) states: a statement in a pleading may be adapted by reference, in the same

11 pleading, or in any other pleading or motion, emphasis added, thereby becoming part of the
pleading for all purposes. In the FAC, plaintiff also frequently referred to specific passages in ECF
12
#1, per Rule 10 (b) without any defendants objection. As explained above, as just learned by
13
plaintiff a few days ago and as undoubtably already fully understood by this court, specific topical
14
references to an earlier complaint, without incorporating its entirety, are perfectly legitimate and
15
proper. About 80 of those proper specific references were done initially, and have now been further
16 supplemented or checked in the proposed SAC. Obviously, those detailed references provide
17 better notice regarding the exact details of the relevant allegations, but they are not construed as
18 being legally integral to the FAC or SAC, and although part of it, rather they are mostly
19 peripheral, and therefore ancillary and potentially removable if necessary, without altering the
20 overall legal effect.
21 2. Plaintiff has seen many other references to the use of exhibits explicitly and directly

22 incorporated by reference including, without limitation: U.S. v. International Longshore, 2007 US

District LEXIS 80924 (EDNY, 2007, Judge Glasser);The Federal Pro Se Clinic, in Step Three",
23
which says essentially that any type of document can be attached to a complaint including
24
portions of prior complaints if they are specifically referred to and labeled; similarly, The Federal
25
Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys at 4.3.A states the complaint may be supplemented by
26
documentary material other administrative materials.... Consider doing it if there is an
27 unusually significant document that you want the court and the defendant to know of at the outset
28 of the case; Plaintiff also has other useful, detailed New York attorney and other blogging material

believed to be authoritative which clearly explains that ALL or portions of attached documents can
be incorporated, and conversely if they are not incorporated specifically, then they are not part of

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

21
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
the complaint. Finally, as admitted above, improper incorporation can lead to a morass of
1
incoherence and confusion. As explained above, apparently plaintiff just missed the inherent
2
illogicalness, during distracted proofreading, of attempting to incorporate the entire 1220+ page
3
complaint, which had just been reduced 97% by this court.
4
III. CONCLUSIONS.
5
Plaintiffs FAC is now, since a few days ago, realized to be legally erroneous, but was
6 easily edited in 3-4 hours to eliminate all generalized references to the entirety of ECF #1, which
7 has now already been done for two days. Plaintiff now merely awaits court permission to file that
8 slightly, 1/200th, amended FAC or SAC, plus a deadline and any other possible additional useful
9 instructions for doing same.
10 For the above reasons, Remington requests that the court now grant plaintiff a couple days, to
11 cleanup any other technicalities resulting therefrom, to address any additional errors complained of
12 in the REPLY war in the court decision. Plaintiff believes that all required elements of all
approximately 30 causes of action are in the text of the FAC (and SAC), or specifically, directly
13
and/or explicitly cited to by relevant page or section number, providing clarity of notice as to
14
specific issues. However, plaintiff expects to go through the entire SAC one final time to
15
incorporate any possible future court suggestions and to verify that all elements are still present,
16
and as much detail as possible is present with no surplus pages to employ. Plaintiff would also like
17 to move this entire process along faster in order to get to a trial on the merits sooner, because
18 defendants cannot risk viably trying this case when they have repeatedly admitted under oath to
19 dumping about 2 million pounds of debris into plaintiffs steep, parklike redwood forest, which
20 continuously changing and damagingly remains here, since 1998, accumulating rent.
21 What is their defense on the merits to that? As soon as we get past the technicality stage

22 towards a trial date, the faster defendants will be forced to resolve this entire situation. Ultimately,
23 defendants cannot convert their continuing nuisance and trespass, which has been fully
acknowledged as such by their own environmental experts, plus all other scientific experts in
24
the case, into a simple, technical tough luck dismissal, based upon the statute of limitations,
25
as they still aspire and keep attempting to do. Hopefully, all the RICO and other defendants
26
will gradually learn and accept that fact sooner, instead of several years from now.
27
Finally, plaintiff requests some sort of clarifying signal as to how seriously this court takes
28
ethics violations and specifically, obvious, serial violations of Rule 11 (b) and CCP 128.7 (b) (1-4).
As noted above and previously, plaintiff believes that the moving RICO defendants motion writers
and effectively all attorneys involved here have been signing-onto a lot of false statements, which

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

22
 Case 3: 17-cv-02007-JST
will be imminently proven during discovery. Plaintiff would welcome a special hearing on this
1
topic or to have it considered at the September Status Conference, because ethics problems
2
dominate this case. If defendants had to swear to their every motion statement they could not
3
continue this case. Why not require every document and statement to the Court be made under
4
oath?
5
6 Dated: August 24, 2017 BY: ________________________________
7 Bruce Remington, in pro se
8
9 For ECF filing and personal service on the court August 24, 2017.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION AND ACQUIESCENCE TO 8-17 MOTION TO DISMISS FAC.

23