STOP ONEROUS RATES & CHARGES, STOP THE SEWER!!!

SLO County officials and their enabler-allies have criminally usurped and abused their authority in their determination to ram an illegal, unwanted, unneeded, medically dangerous, pathogen-producing sludge factory (sewer) on the backs of a selected group of Los Osos residents.

Elected officials are bound by law to listen to the public and act accordingly. Supervisor Gibson, his failed Board of Supervisors, and their enablers, including County Public Works Director Ogren and global bully Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH), have decided that the people don't matter, and ignore and censor them at every turn.

Since Gibson and his co-conspirators continue not to allow the people to be heard, THE SENTINEL suggests its readers reach out to public officials with their personal stories of how the $200 million sewer in this ongoing economic depression will impact them. THE SENTINEL urges its readers in Los Osos to write or call each of them and share what you think and how you feel, always in a civil but firm manner.

Join your friends and neighbors in supporting the Los Osos R.I.C.O. Civil Legal Action to end the sewer nightmare in Los Osos and bring those responsible to the civil and criminal bars of justice.

---THE SENTINEL PUBLISHERS

R.I.C.O.: RACKETEER–INFLUENCED and CORRUPT ORGANIZATION (R.I.C.O.) AND THE FEDERAL R.I.C.O. ACT

The following is a breakdown of the R.I.C.O. statutes as they apply to Los Osos, including relevant court decisions. It is clear that not only does the current available and overwhelming amount of evidence support and demand the R.I.C.O. Federal Civil Action, but that the R.I.C.O. Federal Civil Action is the only cause of action guaranteed to bring the terrorists to the Bar of Justice, permanently end their 30-Year Reign of Terror against the community, prevent deadly health consequences, save residents hundreds of millions of dollars, and preserve and protect our Freedom.

The terrorist leaders are aware of the R.I.C.O. threat to their scheme. To date, their arrogance has been bolstered because they have seemingly had the local state courts and powerful state agencies in their back pockets, but they have no way of avoiding a federal criminal R.I.C.O. Action.

The R.I.C.O. Civil Action is the last and only hope for Los Osos. If we fail to pull together and make this happen, the terrorists will win and reap the financial and political harvest they so covet. The residents of Los Osos will lose everything and be forced to pay the bill in money, health, shame and loss of freedom.
 
Please take the time to read the R.I.C.O. text below. It is a compilation of the appropriate R.I.C.O. statutes and associated federal laws that apply to the terrorist activities.

Included are specific court decisions that apply as well as the complete required text and format for a R.I.C.O. Civil Action.

There are “Sentinel notes” added that are relevant and help the reader relate the legal text of the proposed R.I.C.O. Civil Action.

This is easy and extremely important reading. It is the information you need to know to understand how powerful the proposed R.I.C.O. Civil Action is. Once you have read the information herein there will be no doubt as to the validity of the R.I.C.O. Civil Action and the necessity of your participation in it.

Time is not our friend; apathy, a serial killer. Read the information and evidence presented in The Sentinel then purchase your ticket and get on board the R.I.C.O. Civil Action Express today to a better, healthier, affordable and free tomorrow.  It’s going to be a great ride!

THE FEDERAL R.I.C.O. ACT (RACKETEER–INFLUENCED and CORRUPT ORGANIZATION)

1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (R.I.C.O.) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress’ goal was to eliminate the ill-effects of organized crime on the nation's economy. To put it bluntly, R.I.C.O. was intended to destroy the Mafia.
 
Throughout the 1970s, R.I.C.O.’s intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was R.I.C.O. used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under R.I.C.O. were simply not brought.
 
In the 1980s, however, civil lawyers noticed sections 1964(c) of the R.I.C.O. Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a R.I.C.O. violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil R.I.C.O. claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorney’s fees.
 
The financial windfall available under R.I.C.O. inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980s R.I.C.O. was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil R.I.C.O. action.
 
R.I.C.O.’s broad application was the result of Congress’ inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a R.I.C.O. claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail and wire fraud.
 
During the 1980s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of R.I.C.O. in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under R.I.C.O., and R.I.C.O. has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.
 
Today, R.I.C.O. is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest group(s) and terrorist organizations. In short, a R.I.C.O. claim can arise in almost any context.

CASE LAW, COURT DECISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

RELIANCE

On June 9, 2008, the Supreme Court published its opinion in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 128 S. Ct. 2131 (2008) and resolved this split among the circuit courts of appeal. The Supreme Court held that although the plaintiff's [i.e., the first-party’s] reliance may often establish that a defendant's acts of mail or wire fraud were the proximate cause of injury, the plaintiff’s reliance is not a required element in a civil R.I.C.O. claim and proximate cause may be established by other factors:

. . . “[T]he fact that proof of reliance is often used to prove an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action, such as an element of causation, does not transform reliance itself into an element of the cause of action. [Citation omitted.] Nor does it transform first-party reliance into an indispensable requisite of proximate causation. Proof that the plaintiff relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations may in some cases be sufficient to establish proximate cause, but there is no sound reason to conclude that the absence of first-party reliance may in some cases tend to show that an injury was not sufficiently direct to satisfy § 1964(c)’s proximate cause requirement, but it is not in and of itself dispositive. A contrary holding would ignore Holmes’ instruction that proximate cause is generally not amenable to bright-line rules.
Id. at 2144-45.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Bridge echoes the opinion expressed in an article published by Ricoact.com in 2004:

. . . R.I.C.O.’s proximate cause standard may be established by a plaintiff’s reliance on fraudulent statements, but reliance is not the only means to establish proximate cause. . .

Courts must be mindful that although reliance is an element of common law fraud claims, it is not an element of a R.I.C.O. claim. R.I.C.O. requires injury “by reason of” the R.I.C.O. violation, and a R.I.C.O. plaintiff may experience direct harm even when reliance is absent. . . In the context of R.I.C.O., proximate cause -- not reliance -- is the relevant issue. Reliance is one way to establish proximate cause, but not the only way.

Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza (July 2, 2004): The Second Circuit determines that no reliance is necessary when a defendant's alleged acts of mail and wire fraud directly cause injuries to a competitor or the target of the scheme to defraud.

RELATEDNESS  - THE PATTERN

 
In H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, 492 U.S. 229 (1989), the Supreme Court determined that the factors of relatedness and continuity combine to produce a pattern of racketeering. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in H.J. Inc., the statutory definition of pattern (18 U.S.C. § 1961(5)) has been rendered meaningless for all practical purposes.

To be related, the criminal actions that form the pattern must “have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics.” H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 240.

Sentinel note: The evidence clearly establishes that the purpose of the terrorists’ actions has been for the “same purpose, with the same results, with the same participants, against the same victims and same methods of commission for at least 12 years.”

TOLLING PRINCIPLES

Superficially, the “discovery of injury and pattern” rule was revolutionary because it tied accrual to something other than a plaintiff’s discovery of injury.
In their practical applications, however, equitable tolling principles largely eviscerated any material distinction between the “discovery of injury” and “discovery of injury and pattern” rules. As the Supreme Court noted in Rotella:

“In rejecting pattern discovery as a rule, we do not unsettle the understanding that federal statutes of limitations are generally subject to equitable principles of tolling [citation omitted], and where a pattern remains obscure in the face of a plaintiff’s diligence in seeking to identify it, equitable tolling may be one answer to the plaintiff’s difficulty. . . [Citation omitted.] The virtue of relying on equitable tolling lies in the very nature of such tolling as the exception, not the rule.”

Id. at 560-61. Unlike accrual, that postpones the running of the statute of limitations until discovery of injury, a tolling doctrine, such as fraudulent concealment or duress, suspends the statute of limitations after it has begun to run.

Under fraudulent concealment, the running of the statute of limitations is tolled when a defendant engages in some misleading, deceptive or otherwise contrived action or scheme in the course of committing the wrong that is designed to mask the existence of a cause of action. Riddell v. Riddell Washington Corp., 866 F.2d 1480, 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

A defendant could affirmatively conceal a cause of action by creating false invoices, two sets of books, or by simply lying. In short, for fraudulent concealment to apply, the defendant must simply do something of an affirmative nature designed to prevent discovery of the cause of action.
Even if there is an affirmative act of fraudulent concealment, however, the running of the statute of limitations will not be tolled if the defendant can establish that the cause of action could have been discovered if the plaintiff had exercised reasonable diligence. Id. In Klehr, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that a civil R.I.C.O. plaintiff cannot take advantage of the doctrine of fraudulent concealment unless the plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the claim. 521 U.S. at 195-96.

Thus, assuming the plaintiff exercises reasonable diligence, the statute of limitations will be tolled (even if the plaintiff is aware of its injury but is unaware that the injury is the result of a pattern of racketeering activity) if the defendant engaged in some affirmative act to conceal the existence of the scheme to defraud.

In the context of civil R.I.C.O. claims based on schemes to defraud, seldom is a scheme to defraud committed in an open and notorious manner. To be effective, schemes to defraud must generally be concealed from the victim, so the doctrine of fraudulent concealment frequently postpones the statute of limitations under such circumstances.

If a plaintiff intends to rely on fraudulent concealment to toll the running of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff must plead the fraudulent concealment with particularity. Dummar v. Lummis, 2008 WL 4183338, *6 (10th Cir. 2008).

R.I.C.O. addresses long-term, not one-shot, criminal activity. Not only must a R.I.C.O. claim be based upon criminal activity, but the criminal acts must constitute a “pattern” of criminal activity. A single criminal act, short-term criminal conduct, or criminal actions that bear no relationship to each other will not give rise to a R.I.C.O. claim.

Sentinel note: The criminal activities of the terrorists have been numerous and ongoing with the same principle participants for at least 12 years. Evidence to support the “pattern of criminal activity” is voluminous. New claims are better than old claims.

The United States Supreme Court has imposed a four-year statute of limitations on all civil R.I.C.O. claims. Civil R.I.C.O.'s statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury.

R.I.C.O. is like any other law -- the victim must pursue its right to relief with diligence. If one can avoid a statute of limitations defense, one should.

Sentinel note: As has already been shown, the acts of the terrorists over the past 12+ years clearly fit into the court decisions regarding the suspension of any statute of limitations.

ENTERPRISE -- ENTERPRISE/RACKETEERING ACTIVITY DISTINCTION

Many circuits have held that a R.I.C.O. plaintiff who relies on an association-in-fact enterprise must plead and establish that there is an enterprise separate and distinct from the pattern of racketeering. Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 549-550 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing cases from the Third, Fourth, Eighth and Tenth Circuit Courts).

According to these circuit courts, if the members of an association-in-fact enterprise are bound together by no more than their acts of racketeering, then the R.I.C.O. claim fails because section 1964(c) requires both an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering.

To the extent an enterprise carries out legitimate objectives, in addition to allegedly criminal actions, the enterprise/racketeering activity distinction is not problematic.

Sentinel note: The State and Regional Water Boards, the County and the original LOCSD Board and their GM, Bruce Buel, carried out both legitimate and illegal activities against Los Osos for at least seven years.

Diamonds Plus, Inc., 960 F.2d 770 n.5 (“though it is not required, proof that the enterprise conducts lawful activity unrelated to the pattern of racketeering activity will often serve to prove the enterprise is separate from the pattern of racketeering). With regard to wholly criminal association-in-fact enterprises, one court has stated:

“[A] distinct structure might be demonstrated by proof that the group engaged in a diverse pattern of crimes or that it has an organizational pattern or system of authority beyond what was necessary to perpetrate the predicate crimes.”
 
The command system of a Mafia family is an example of this type of structure, as is the hierarchy, planning and division of profits within a prostitution ring.

United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647, 665 (8th Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 1040 (1982). “The focus of the inquiry is whether the enterprise encompasses more than what is necessary to commit the predicate RICO offense.”
 
Diamonds Plus, Inc., 960 F. 2d at 770. “It is not enough that individual members of the enterprise carry on activities distinct from the pattern of racketeering; the group as a whole must have a common link other than the racketeering activity. McDonough v. National Home Ins. Co., 108 F.\3d 174, 177 (8th Cir. 1997).

Not all courts have adopted the principle that the enterprise must be separate and distinct from the pattern of racketeering. The Seventh Circuit, for example, “requires that there be some kind of ascertainable structure [to the enterprise], but it does not require it to be a separate structure.” Odom, 486 F.3d at 550 (citing Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel, L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Rogers, 89 F.3d 1326, 1337-38 (7th Cir. 1996)).

The First, Second, Ninth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuit Courts have “rejected any requirement that there be ‘an ascertainable structure,’ separate or otherwise, for an association-in-fact enterprise.” Odom, 486 F.3d at 550. In rejecting any requirement that the enterprise must be distinct from the pattern of racketeering, the Ninth Circuit reasoned:

The Supreme Court’s statement in Turkette that an “enterprise” is “an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages” is not a statement that an associated-in-fact enterprise must have some kind of separate structure. 452 U.S. 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524. Rather, it is merely a statement of the obvious: The enterprise and its activity are two separate things. One is the enterprise. The other is the activity.

Id. at 551. The Ninth Circuit concluded that a viable association-in-fact enterprise must simply possess their characteristics: the group must have a “common purpose,” the group must function as an “ongoing organization, formal or informal,” and the various associates must function as a “continuing unit.” Id. at 552 (citing Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524).

Sentinel note: The evidence clearly shows a “common purpose,” that the group was and is functioning as an “ongoing organization” both “formal and informal,” and that the “various associates function as a continuing unit.”

MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD

The extensive use of R.I.C.O. in the civil context is almost solely attributable to the inclusion of mail and wire fraud as predicate acts. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 500 (1985).

The mail and wire fraud statutes essentially make it criminal for any one to use the mails or wires to advance a scheme to defraud. Note that the fraudulent statements themselves need not be transmitted by mail or wire; it is only required that the scheme to defraud be advanced, concealed or furthered by the use of the U.S. mail or wires. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343.

Sentinel note: Just one example that complies with the above began when the LOCSD issued the 19-word statement in mailings and at CSD public meetings that were televised, and echoed by the RWQCB in print and at CSD public meetings, that; “The RWQCB has mandated that Los Osos build a sewer. Los Osos has no choice.”

The 19-word lie was used to deliberately influence the illegal June 2001 Assessment District vote in favor of passing, and continued to be used by the LOCSD and the RWQCB to coerce and intimidate residents into compliance for more than three years.

Finally, in July 2002, then-LOCSD president Rose Bowker issued a statement that stated the RWQCB had NOT “mandated” a sewer for Los Osos.
Many misrepresentations, threats and lies have been told to the community in order to protect the scheme, protect some of the terrorists, and coerce and intimidate the community into submission. They include, but are not limited to, false data, deprivation of civil rights, deprivation of election rights and much more.

Because every business or corporation in the United States uses the mails or wires to make money, any business who allegedly engages in common law fraud arguably violates the federal mail and wire fraud statutes.

As a result, almost any business that allegedly engages in common law fraud can theoretically be sued under the R.I.C.O. Act.

As general rule, a scheme to defraud must involve misrepresentations as to past or presently existing fact.

Sentinel note: Examples of fraudulent statements made by the LOCSD and the RWQCB representing past and present conditions of water, wastewater disposal, the need for central sewer, penalties for not building a sewer and much more, exist in volume.

“[I]t is settled law that 'a promise of future action or a prediction of future events cannot, standing alone, be a basis for fraud because it is not a representation, there is no right to rely on it, and it is not false when made.'" Hall v. Burger King Corp., 912 F.Supp. 1509, 1544 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (Kamenesh v. City of Miami, 772 F.Supp. 583, 594 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (quoting Cavic v. Grand Bahama Dev. Co., 701 F.2d 879, 883 (11th Cir.1983)).
Id. at 499-500; see also Midwest Grinding, 976 F.2d at 1025 (“. . . we do not look favorably upon many instances of mail and wire fraud to form a pattern" (citing numerous cases).)

Thus, even if a R.I.C.O. plaintiff has clearly alleged a pattern of mail and wire fraud violations, courts may still view the R.I.C.O. claim as beyond the intended scope of the R.I.C.O. Act and may actively try to find a way to avoid application of the R.I.C.O. Act to what is more properly a simple claim of common law fraud.

Plaintiffs should always attempt to base their R.I.C.O. claims on more than just alleged violations of the mail and wire fraud statutes. With hard work, a plaintiff should be able to identify other acts of racketeering under almost any factual scenario.

Sentinel note: All of the available court decisions from the Circuit Courts through the Supreme Court that clearly define what is R.I.C.O. and what is not have been analyzed by authorities and successfully applied by The Sentinel to this case.

The depth and scope of the alleged criminal activity, supported by the current volume of evidence, support documents and witness testimony is more than sufficient to meet any R.I.C.O. requirement.

CONTINUITY

Continuity may be close-ended or open-ended. Id. at 241. “A party alleging a R.I.C.O. violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time.” Id. at 242.

Some courts have held that “a substantial period of time” may be as little as a year. See Religious Technology Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 366 (9th Cir. 1992) “[W]e have found no case in which a court has held the requirement to be satisfied by a pattern of activity lasting less than a year.”
Sentinel note: In the case of Los Osos, the pattern of alleged criminal behavior has a minimum of 12 years in evidence and continues today.

Yet, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has noted: “We have ‘never held a period of less than two years to constitute a substantial period of time.’” Spool v. World Child Intern. Adoption Agency, 520 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir. 2008).

Open-ended continuity exists when criminal conduct is specifically threatened to be repeated or to extend indefinitely into the future. H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 242-43.

Sentinel note: The evidence, support documents and witness testimony clearly establishes the “criminal conduct” of the agencies and individuals and that it is “extending indefinitely into the future.”

An open-ended pattern is best exemplified by a mobster's threat to burn down a business unless the owner pays $1,000 per month.

Sentinel note: Examples: If you don’t approve the June 2001 Assessment District vote the RWQCB will fine individuals up to $10,000 per day. If you don’t approve the June 2001 A. D. vote, you will still have to build a sewer and it will cost each property owner more money. If you don’t build a sewer then LOCSD will not be able to secure a low-interest SRF Construction Loan. If you don’t build a sewer, the RWQCB will issue Cease & Desist orders to all residents in the PZ and fine individuals thousands of dollars.

These are just a few of the examples of threats used by the terrorists designed to coerce and intimidate residents and influence the outcome of the 2001 illegal Assessment District vote. 

The extortionate threat is specific and unlimited in duration. Example: Whenever you stop paying $1,000 per month (whether it's tomorrow or 10 years from now) your building will burn.

Thus, the business owner could immediately state a R.I.C.O. claim on the basis of this single threat, even if the threat was never made again or no money was ever paid.

Threats of indefinite duration also exist where criminal conduct has become a regular way of conducting the defendants' ongoing legitimate business.
Sentinel note: The State and Regional Water Boards, the County and the original LOCSD Board and their GM, Bruce Buel, made illegal conduct a “regular way of conducting ongoing legitimate business.”

DO WE HAVE A R.I.C.O. CLAIM?

There is no simple answer to this question because the answer depends upon the unique facts of each case. A large percentage of potential R.I.C.O. claims are undermined by the following considerations:

A R.I.C.O. claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. The simplest way to put this concept is: no crime -- no R.I.C.O. violation.

This rule applies even in the context of civil R.I.C.O. claims. Every R.I.C.O. claim must be based upon a violation of one of the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). The R.I.C.O. Act refers to such criminal activity as racketeering activity.

R.I.C.O. claims cannot be based upon breach of contract, broken promises, negligence, defective product design, failed business transactions, or any number of other factual scenarios that may give rise to other claims under the common law.

This being said, a R.I.C.O. claim can be based upon violations of the criminal mail and wire fraud statutes. The mail and wire fraud statutes are very broad.

Some creative lawyers have succeeded in arguing that the mail and wire fraud statutes have been violated by fact patterns that superficially appear to give rise only to claims of negligence, breach of contract, and other actions giving rise to common law rights.

If a R.I.C.O. claim is based only upon violations of the mail or wire fraud statutes, however, courts are likely to subject the claims to stricter scrutiny.

Courts look more favorably upon R.I.C.O. claims based upon true criminal behavior, such as bribery, kickbacks, extortion, obstruction of justice, and clearly criminal schemes that are advanced by the use of the mails and wires.

R.I.C.O. addresses long-term, not one-shot, criminal activity. Not only must a R.I.C.O. claim be based upon criminal activity, but the criminal acts must constitute a “pattern” of criminal activity.

A single criminal act, short-term criminal conduct, or criminal actions that bear no relationship to each other will not give rise to a R.I.C.O. claim. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that criminal actions constitute a “pattern” only if they are related and continuous.

In order to be "related," the criminal acts must involve the same victims, have the same methods of commission, involve the same participants, or be related in some other fashion.

Sentinel note: The criminal acts of coercion and intimidation used by the terrorists have continually involved the same victims, the entire community of Los Osos; have the same methods of commission, misuse and abuse of the law and threats for non-compliance; involve the primarily the same principle terrorist participants, and are related in fashion.

A pattern may be sufficiently continuous if the criminal actions occurred over a substantial period of time or posed a threat of indefinite duration.
Sentinel note: The above has been thoroughly met.

The former patterns are referred to as closed-ended patterns; the latter patterns are referred to as open-ended patterns. Accordingly, even if you have been injured by a criminal act, you will not have a R.I.C.O. claim unless that criminal act is part of a larger pattern of criminal activity.

Your claim may be barred by the statute of limitations if you discovered or reasonably should have discovered your injury four or more years ago.
Many people are mistaken that civil R.I.C.O. claims are not subject to a statute of limitations. True, Congress failed to include a statute of limitations when it passed the R.I.C.O. Act, but the United States Supreme Court has remedied that oversight and imposed a four-year statute of limitations on all civil R.I.C.O. claims.

Civil R.I.C.O. statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury.

Many people also believe that the statute of limitations is reset every time a new criminal act is committed -- this is not true. Once a victim is aware or should be aware of its injury, the victim has four years to discover the remaining elements of its claim and bring suit. A victim cannot sit on its rights and refrain from filing suit in the face of known injuries.

That being said, however, there are several equitable doctrines that may toll or suspend the running of the statute of limitations. If a defendant fraudulently conceals facts that are essential to the victim's ability to purse its rights, the running of the statute of limitations may be tolled.

Sentinel note: A number of examples of the terrorists “fraudulently concealing facts that are essential to the victim’s ability to pursue rights” exist. Any and all deliberately false or misleading materials sent by mail, transmitted by wire (computer, e-mails, etc.) or statements made at televised public meetings or events held by any of the terrorists complies.

The successful outcome for the terrorists of the illegal June 2001 Assessment District vote was dependent on the intended affect of the fraudulent statements and threats contained in  the LOCSD “Messages,” on mailings sent by the Pandora Nash-Karner Vote “Yes” For The Sewer Committee and RWQCB statements.

The lies and threats made in mailings and statements at televised public LOCSD meetings by the Board, ex-GM Bruce Buel, Pandora Nash-Karner, terrorist enablers and co-conspirators from the private sector and representatives of the RWQCB prior to the June 2001 illegal Assessment District vote deprived voters of the factual information they were entitled by law to receive in order to make an informed, intelligent decision.

The LOCSD and the RWQCB deliberately deprived the community of California Water Code laws that were specific requiring community permission to build a sewer, to enter into an SRF Construction Loan and to issue and sell Bonds.

The knowledge of these laws was denied the community by the County and RWQCB in 1991-’92 and were again denied the community from 1999 through the present by the LOCSD, the County and the RWQCB.

The LOCSD, the County, the RWQCB and the State Water Board committed several acts of Civil Rights violations.

Another example of the deliberate concealment of facts was seen in a RWQCB four-page, four-color, double-sided mailing sent to residents three days prior to an “emergency meeting” called by the LOCSD in May 2002 in response to the announcement by the Total Recall Committee one week before that an effort had begun to recall all five LOCSD Directors.

In the mailing, the RWQCB made a number of deliberate false statements regarding a number of issues including the status of the 11 illegal groundwater monitoring wells, lies about statements that had been made by a federal authority, Dr. Kreissel, who had previously come to Los Osos and stated that “no sewer was needed” and much more.

In a show of force and to further coerce and intimidate the community, at the “emergency meeting” there were officials from the State Water Board, the USEPA, the RWQCB and the LOCSD. The LOCSD and State and Regional Water Board representatives reiterated many of the lies and threats contained in the mailer and none of the State Water Board or USEPA representatives refuted them. Complicity.

Point of fact: The two representatives from the USEPA had no interest, background or qualifications to be involved in the Los Osos issue. They were simply window-dressing to help frighten the community into believing the USEPA supported the sewer effort.

The use by the LOCSD and the RWQCB of deliberate false and misleading information and threats in an attempt to undermine the Total Recall efforts by coercing and intimidating residents violated state and federal laws regarding deliberate, fraudulent interference with a legitimate political organization.

In addition to all else, these and other offenses were violations of the Civil Rights of all Los Osos residents. Those Civil Rights violations continue to this day. The county and the RWQCB continue to deprive residents of their legal rights in order to force the unneeded, unwanted, unaffordable, deadly pathogen-producing factory on Los Osos.

In addition, acts of duress, such as "if you sue me, I'll kill you," may toll the running of the statute of limitations.

Sentinel note: “If you fail to approve the June 2001 illegal Assessment District vote, the RWQCB will fine individuals up to $10,000 per day, [you] will have to build a sewer anyway and it will cost more, the CSD will not be able to get a low-interest SRF Construction Loan, etc.”

“All tolling doctrines are based upon whether it is fair, under the circumstances, to bar the victim's claims on the basis of the running of the statute of limitations.

Also, if a defendant engages in a new pattern of racketeering, that causes new and independent injuries, a new limitations period may apply to those new and independent injuries.

Of course, these are merely general considerations. Consult with an attorney to determine whether the facts of your particular case give rise to a R.I.C.O. claim

ASSOCIATED IN FACT/ENTERPRISE

 
To require that an associated-in-fact enterprise have a structure beyond that necessary to carry out its racketeering activities would be to require precisely what the Court in Turkette held that R.I.C.O. does not require. Such a requirement would necessitate that the enterprise have a structure to serve both illegal racketeering activities as well as legitimate activities. . .  
 
But the Court in Turkette held precisely the opposite. It held that a purely criminal enterprise can be an associated-in-fact enterprise within the meaning of R.I.C.O. [Citations omitted]. . . There must, of course, be an associated-in-fact enterprise, as required by the statute and as explained in Turkette. But there is no additional requirement that the enterprise have an “ascertainable structure.”
Id. at 551-552.
 
The Ninth Circuit further held that a plaintiff need merely meet the three criteria of an association-in-fact enterprise set forth in Turkette: 1) the members of the enterprise must share a “common purpose,” 2) the members must function as an “ongoing organization, formal or informal,” and 3) the members must function as a “continuing unit.” Id. at 552.
 
Sentinel note: Just one example of “members sharing a common purpose,” functioning as an “ongoing organization” and a “continuing unit” is evidenced in a number of e-mails, letters and documents between Pandora Nash-Karner and Roger Briggs of the RWQCB as well as correspondence between the RWQCB and the LOCSD in which deliberate misrepresentations or lies were discussed or plans for coercion and intimidation against Los Osos were made.

Whenever there was a threat of exposure or organized resistance from anyone in the community, the LOCSD, Karner and the RWQCB launched a campaign of mail and wire fraud designed to crush the resistance through coercion and intimidation of residents.

The tight bond between Karner and Briggs is seen in a series of e-mails between them after the successful 2005 recall. Karner begs Briggs to take the sewer project away from Los Osos before the new Board is seated.

Because their October meeting agenda had already been set, Briggs told Karner that he was unable to do so but assured her that he had other means of coercion and intimidation already in place (Cease & Desist Orders) that would bring the community in line.

In another e-mail, Karner begged Briggs to “fine the CSD out of existence.” Briggs assured her that steps were already in place. In an e-mail from Briggs to then LOCSD GM Bruce Buel, Briggs asks for the list of water customers. It was from that list that Briggs selected the 45 Cease & Desist Order recipients.

The State Water Board joined in the effort to overwhelm the new LOCSD Board by immediately calling for return of the $6 million loaned to the CSD that had been deliberately squandered by the recalled Directors prior to the recall.

There is an abundance of evidence showing of “members sharing a common purpose,” functioning as an “ongoing organization” and a “continuing unit” between Pandora Nash-Karner, Gary Karner, the LOCSD, the County, the RWQCB and Roger W. Briggs.

There are many other examples in evidence that clearly fulfill the above requirements, including the already referenced collusion between the RWQCB, Pandora Nash-Karner and the LOCSD regarding the falsely “mandated” sewer and the pre-June 2001 Assessment District mailings.
 
“The Odom plaintiffs’ enterprise satisfied these three criteria. The common purpose of the enterprise was to increase the ©Ricoact.com LLC (August 2007) number of people using MSN by fraudulent means.” Id. at 552.
 
“Microsoft and Best Buy functioned as an ‘ongoing organization’ in that they had established mechanisms to transfer plaintiffs’ personal information from Best Buy to Microsoft, enabling Microsoft to activate the plaintiff customers’ MSN accounts without their knowledge or permission and to bill the customers for their MSN membership. Id. Microsoft and Best Buy’s cross-marketing contract provided further evidence of an ongoing organization.” Id.

“Finally, plaintiffs alleged that Best Buy and Microsoft functioned as a ‘continuing unit’ in that the alleged scheme to defraud covered a two-year period.” Id. at 553.
 
“The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Odom is well-reasoned. The enterprise element of a R.I.C.O. claim should focus on the nature of the group’s membership and organization, not on the group’s activity – after all, defendants are liable for R.I.C.O. violations – not enterprises.
 
 “In many cases, a defendant uses an enterprise to perpetrate acts of racketeering, but an enterprise may also be the ‘prize,’ ‘instrument,’ or ‘victim.’ National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 n.5 (1994). Thus, the members of an association-in-fact enterprise may engage only in racketeering activity or may engage in no racketeering activity whatsoever.
 
 “Turkette’s criteria that: 1) the members of the enterprise share a ‘common purpose,’ 2) the members function as an ‘ongoing organization, formal or informal,’ and 3) the members function as a ‘continuing unit’ sufficiently ensure that an association-in-fact enterprise exists in reality, not merely in the plaintiff lawyer’s mind.”

SENTINEL EPILOGUE

Since a R.I.C.O. Civil Action is predicated on criminal activity, elected officials and bureaucrats are not allowed to use public funds to pay for their defense. They will all have to use their own money.

The estimated minimum cost per defendant for legal representation could easily be more than one-quarter of a million dollars ($250,000). In addition, should Plaintiffs prevail, the judgments could easily reach well over a million dollars ($1,000,000) per defendant.

A successful R.I.C.O. Civil Action will permanently end their 30-Year Reign of Terror. It will allow for the retention of safe on-site systems, protect the current and future health and safety of all Los Osos, protect and preserve clean, safe drinking water, and will financially punish the terrorists with the loss of everything they worship: money and position.

Most importantly, a successful R.I.C.O. Civil Action it will preserve and protect our freedom. It will set an example to the entire nation that We the People are in charge; that We the People will not allow terrorists to victimize free Americans; that We the People stand united under the protection and law of our Democratic Republic.

Another consequence to the terrorists of a successful civil prosecution is the probable criminal indictments that would surely have to follow. A bonus benefit to the Justice Department will be that all of the evidence used in the Civil Action would be available to them, eliminating months of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs.

This is important because, unfortunately, sometimes criminal prosecutorial decisions are made not based on justice but on cost. A successful R.I.C.O. Civil Action will save hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in costs and provide criminal authorities with thousands of pages of evidence and support documents already in proper order.

The cost for each terrorist to defend themselves against criminal indictments could easily pass the million-dollar ($1,000,000) mark. The punishment for each offense per defendant would see most of the terrorists behind bars for many years, thereby guaranteeing they will never be able to terrorize Los Osos or anyone else again.

Another benefit of a successful R.I.C.O. Civil Action is that it will reverberate in every community across the nation. Los Osos will have set the precedent that will help others protect and preserve the safety and freedom of their community.

We have the opportunity to really make a significant difference for our community, our state and our nation. We are Americans under a Democratic Republic, and as Americans we understand how important our freedom is and how important it is to fight to protect and preserve that freedom.

As Americans we have the compassion to reach out to those who need a hand up and punish those who seek to take away our freedom. As Americans we have a duty to defeat evil whenever it threatens our way of life. The Los Osos way of life has been under attack by determined terrorists for three decades and it’s time to put an end to it once and for all.

All you have to do to end the 30-Year Reign of Terror, guarantee a safe, healthy and affordable future for all Los Osos, guarantee safe, clean water and protect and preserve your freedom is invest at least $600 for your ticket, then get on board the Los Osos R.I.C.O. Civil Action Express!

God Bless America and God Bless all of you who cast off the chains of the Victim and stand for Freedom by investing your $600 (or more) and boarding the Los Osos R.I.C.O. Civil Action Express! Together we will defeat the terrorists, save our community and guarantee a healthy, safe future for all.

The Los Osos Sentinel is committed to raising $3,000,000 to retain a premiere national legal firm with a distinguished track record of victories in Civil R.I.C.O. Actions against federal, state and county agencies as well as certain civilian entities.

The $3,000,000 figure is somewhat ambiguous. If we fall short, depending on how short, we will still be able to secure a successful firm. The difference in making the goal and falling short is the ability to guarantee the best prosecution and the best opportunity for victory. You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

INVEST IN R.I.C.O.

Los Osos still has a choice which must be made now or be lost forever. That choice is to stop being victims, stand up for Freedom by taking the only action that will guarantee a safe, healthy and affordable future for all Los Osos.

Your choices: Be forced to pay at least $8,600 the first year and be in bondage for up to an addition al $150,000 - $300,000, not including the ever-rising hidden and unforeseeable costs and expenses, OR make your one-time, anonymous investment of at least $600 and permanently end the nightmare, protect your family and save our community.

To guarantee anonymity for all, a safe address has been secured and all of the money will be deposited in an out of state bank account. All money will be accounted for and on-going updates will be posted in The Sentinel.

All you have to do to (anonymously) invest in your ticket is make your check, money order or bank check payable to: LORICO, and send it to:

LORICOEXPRESS
Box #1301
5348 Vegas Dr.
Las Vegas, NV 89108

The goal is to raise $3,000,000. If each property in the PZ invests only $600 we will reach our goal.  What is your Freedom worth to you?
 
Apathy will cost you and your family hundreds of thousands of dollars, open the door for massive build-out, over-population, crime and other serious consequences. Your inaction will open the doors to social genocide and see your property values FLUSHED down the sewer of economic disaster.
 
The Los Osos R.I.C.O. Civil Action will permanently end the nightmare, save you hundreds of thousands of dollars, bring those responsible to the Bars of Justice, save property values, preserve the beauty of the community, allow for sensible growth, guarantee safe, clean water in perpetuity, protect the physical and financial health of our families and preserve our Freedom.
 

REQUIRED FOR FILING A R.I.C.O. CIVIL ACTION

If it were easy to prepare and conduct a successful R.I.C.O. Civil Action, most civil attorneys could do it and for considerably less than $3,000,000. It is important to fully understand that we need to raise the $3,000,000 for the best prosecution and the best opportunity of prevailing.

The terrorists realize this. They will cower when they see a United Los Osos. They will scatter and run like rats on a sinking ship when they are served with a R.I.C.O. Civil Action backed by a united community.

Below is the required format of the R.I.C.O. Civil Action. We have included this so you will be aware of the complexity of a R.I.C.O. case and have an appreciation for the necessity of retaining a premiere, competent and successful law firm.

The R.I.C.O. Civil Action is our last hope to defeat the terrorists, save our community and preserve our freedom. Time is not our friend; Apathy, a serial killer.

Civil R.I.C.O. Case-Statement Order (Text)

[caption]

Order No.

It is ORDERED:

The proponent of the civil R.I.C.O. claim shall file and serve [within days of] a case statement that shall include the facts relied on to initiate the R.I.C.O. claim. In particular, the statement shall use the numbers and letters set forth below, unless filed as part of an amended and restated pleading (in which latter case, the allegations of the amended and restated pleading shall reasonably follow the organization set out below), and shall state in detail and with specificity the following information:

1. State whether the alleged unlawful conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§  1962(a), (b), (c), and/or (d). If you allege violations of more than one š 1962 subsection, treat each as a separate R.I.C.O. claim.

2. List each defendant, and state the alleged misconduct and basis of alleged liability of each defendant.

3. List the alleged wrongdoers, other than the defendants listed above, and state the alleged misconduct of each wrongdoer.

4. List the alleged victims, and state how each victim allegedly was injured.

5. Describe in detail the pattern of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt alleged for each R.I.C.O. claim. A description of the pattern of racketeering activity shall:

(a) list the alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes allegedly violated by each predicate act;

(b) state the dates of the predicate acts, the participants in the predicate acts, and a description of the facts surrounding each predicate act;
 
(c) if the R.I.C.O. claim is based on the predicate offenses of wire fraud, mail fraud, fraud in the sale of securities, or fraud in connection with a case under U.S.C. Title 11, the "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity," Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (identify the time, place, and contents of the alleged misrepresentation or omissions, and the identity of persons to whom and by whom the alleged misrepresentations or omissions were made);

(d) describe in detail the perceived relationship that the predicate acts bear to each other or to some external organizing principle that renders them "ordered" or "arranged" or "part of a common plan"; and

(e) explain how the predicate acts amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.

6. Describe in detail the alleged enterprise for each R.I.C.O. claim. A description of the enterprise shall:

(a) state the names of the individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations, or other entities allegedly constituting the enterprise;

(b) describe the structure, purpose, roles, function, and course of conduct of the enterprise;

(c) state whether any defendants are employees, officers, or directors of the alleged enterprise;

(d) state whether any defendants are associated with the alleged enterprise, and if so, how;

(e) explain how each defendant participated in the direction of the affairs of the enterprise;
   
(f) state whether you allege [(i) that the defendants are individuals or entities separate from the alleged enterprise, or (ii) that the defendants are the enterprise itself, or (iii) that the defendants are] members of the enterprise; and
 
(g) if you allege any defendants to be the enterprise itself, or members of the enterprise, explain whether such defendants are perpetrators, passive instruments, or victims of the alleged racketeering activity.

7. State whether you allege, and describe in detail, how the pattern of racketeering activity and the enterprise are separate or have merged into one entity.

8. Describe the alleged relationship between the activities and the pattern of racketeering activity. Discuss how the racketeering activity differs from the usual and daily activities of the enterprise, if at all.

9. Describe what benefits, if any, the alleged enterprise and each defendant received from the alleged pattern of racketeering activity.

10. Describe the effect of the activities of the enterprise on interstate or foreign commerce.

11. If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), provide the following information:

(a) State who received the income derived from the pattern of racketeering activity or through the collection of an unlawful debt; and

(b) Describe the use or investment of such income.

12. If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), provide the following information:

(a) Describe in detail the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in or control of the alleged enterprise; and
   
(b) State whether the same entity is both the liable "person" and the "enterprise" under š 1962(b).

13. If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), provide the following information:

(a) state who is employed by or associated with the enterprise; [and]
   
(b) state whether the same entity is both the liable "person" and the "enterprise" under š 1962(c).

14. If the complaint alleges a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), describe in
 detail the alleged conspiracy.

15. Describe the alleged injury to business or property.

16. Describe the relationship between the alleged injury and violation of the R.I.C.O. statute.

17. List the damages sustained by reason of the violation of § 1962, indicating the amount for which each defendant allegedly is liable.

18. Provide any additional information you feel would be helpful to the Court in processing your R.I.C.O. claim.

Dated:
United States District Judge

Note: This order has been designed to establish a uniform and efficient procedure for deciding civil actions containing claims made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 ("Civil R.I.C.O.").

 "GOOD PEOPLE DON’T LET BAD THINGS HAPPEN"