case 4:13-cv-00086-ods document 157 filed 11/18/16 page 1 of 40 · 2015. 2. 4. · tragic accident...

Case 4:13-cv-00086-ODS Document 157 Filed 11/18/16 of 40

1

Richard D. Barber 3240 Heeb Road

Manhattan, Mt. 59741 (406) 599-0524

November16, 2016

Honorable Ortrie D. Smith Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse 400 East Ninth Street Kansas City, Missouri, 64106 Your Honor, This is a follow up letter to my previous letter addressed to your court on December 10, 2015.(Barber letter to Judge Smith – December 10, 2015 is in the record) I write this letter on my own without the benefit of counsel representing me at this time. Further, I am not being compelled to write this letter or working as a paid consultant in any Remington bolt action rifle litigation, declining a host of cases since I wrote to you last December.1 Your Honor, I am now forced by moral conscience to object to the proposed Pollard Settlement. While I am reluctant to do so, one hard realization keeps cropping up in the forefront of my mind –it would be unconscionable for me to live with myself with blood on my hands if I were to fail to act given what I know about the facts of this subject matter. I own the following rifles included in the proposed settlement. Models 721 S/N –262868, 660 S/N -116750, M/700 S/N – A6644383, M/700 S/N – S6388412, M/700 S/N – S6548867 XMP fire control. I object to the proposed settlement for the following reasons: 1. The relief being offered by the proposed settlement, involving the voucher proposal for the sub class of Model 600, Mohawk 600, 660; and XP-100 bolt action pistols (Model 600 rifles) is inadequate and not fair. This is evidenced by the fact these firearms are already the subject of

1 For the record, I must disclose to the court I am currently involved with one matter, investing my time as a consultant into this case on a no charge basis. I want to re-emphasize to the court, I have no vested financial interest in the outcome of my investigation into this matter. This incident involved a fifteen (15) year old boy (at the time) who’s Model 700 rifle fitted with an X Mark Pro spontaneously discharged, resulting in the death of the youths eleven (11) year old brother in 2011. Apparently no one believed a firearm can fire without the trigger being pulled, including the boy’s father. The youth was charged criminally (as an adult) for the “murder” of his younger brother. He was, before the 2013 trial, and remained incarcerated until October 19, 2015, serving a sentence for manslaughter after the jury failed to return the verdict for murder. I believe the incident was another tragic accident that could have been prevented had Remington been more proactive with warnings and a recall of the XMP fire control when they first indentified deficiencies with the XMP fire control system. (attachment (1) 2008 XMP sear design change memo)


2

an outstanding and open recall as of October 1978. I believe Remington is obligated to repair the Model 600 rifles. With this understanding, I believe class members are already entitled to a free retrofit of a safer alternative fire control system under the 1978 recall. 2 2. The settlement is not fair and adequate because the current Settlement Notice does not inform members of the Model 600 sub class this population of rifles are already the subject of an outstanding and open recall for a free retrofit of a safer alternative fire control system at no cost to the public. 3. The proposed settlement is not fair, adequate or reasonable in light of the fact, Remington counsel, made false and misleading statements to the court at the February 4, 2015 hearing knowing, individually and/or collectively, these statements were false and made with willful design by Defendants to mislead the court to approve the settlement with fraudulent testimony. 4. The proposed settlement is not fair, reasonable or adequate because at no time during or after the hearing did anyone on behalf of Remington, and/or, any member of class counsel present at the February 4, 2015 hearing, individually or collectively, make any attempt whatsoever to correct the faulty record. The record is quite clear on this fact, Your Honor, at no time during, up until the time, or even after the court received my December 10, 2015 letter, ten months later, did Remington or any member of class counsel make any attempt to correct the faulty statements that had the effect to permit a potential fraud on your court to secure the proposed settlement. The fraudulent statements at the February 4th hearing, I now allege, were intentionally designed to ease the courts concerns about the reasonableness of the voucher proposal after Remington counsel assured this court the Model 600 rifles were “safe” and reliable rifles.3 This assurance, I allege, was willful in intent and designed to compel this court to approve the proposed settlement. 5. The proposed settlement is not fair, reasonable or adequate because certain provisions –namely the Model 600 series voucher proposal –of the proposed settlement is based on a lie. As officers of the court, Remington and class counsel absolutely knew, individually and/or collectively, their ethical obligation as officers of the court to correct any known or suspected, defective, and/or, false and misleading statements that the court might rely upon to advance the proposed settlement to a final settlement hearing. 6. The proposed settlement is not fair, reasonable or adequate because as officers of the court, Remington and class counsel, individually and/or collectively, even if through oversight, should have recognized their ethical obligation to correct any defective statements that would have the effect to result in a faulty record or bring forth information to the court the instant any officer of the court may have attempted to defile the integrity of the court through false and fraudulent testimony.

2 Previous Barber letter (attachment (b) The Model 600 Safety Recall) 3 Previous Barber letter (attachment (a) February 4th Transcript, Page 19 – Line 9 -18


3

7. The proposed settlement is not fair and adequate because the settlement, if approved as currently structured is not a fair or an adequate remedy to Model 600 rifle owners if approved under false pretence, supported by fraudulent testimony of Defendants designed with willful design to mislead the court to secure the proposed settlement as currently structured. 8. Class counsel did not adequately represent the interests of the Model 600 class, individually and/or collectively, because they agreed to the voucher proposal and a firearm safety instructional DVD video in lieu of a retrofit when class counsel knew or should have known the Model 600 rifles are already the subject of an outstanding and open recall as of October 1978. 9. Class counsel betrayed the trust of the Model 600 class and this court when they individually and/or collectively failed to offer a reasonable rebuttal to Remington counsels false and misleading statements rendered at the February 4, 2015 hearing knowing, individually and/or collectively, these statements were false and made with willful intent by Defendants to mislead the court to approve the settlement with fraudulent testimony. 10. Class counsel did not adequately represent the best interest of the class, individually and/or collectively, when class counsel agreed to permit Remington to deny any defects or hidden dangers in the Walker fire control system that would have the effect to diminish return of rifles for a free retrofit as part of the bargain to settle Pollard on behalf of millions of unsuspecting Remington rifle owners. 11. Class counsel did not adequately represent the best interest of the class, individually and/or collectively, when class counsel joined with Remington and filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order , collectively attempting to conceal publically available Remington internal documents from the class showing the true extent of Remington’s physical knowledge of the clear and present dangers posed to members of the unsuspecting class. This was done in spite of the clear and present danger known by class counsel involving the continued use of the Walker fire control system, especially by members of the Model 600 sub class knowing this would result in foreseeable future injury and death of members of the class as the court theorized to be the case when questioning Remington and class counsel about the proposed voucher proposal.4 12. Class counsel did not adequately represent the best interest of the class, individually and/or collectively, by agreeing to a Joint Motion for Protective Order with Remington to seal previously available public documents with actual design to conceal well documented dangers contained within Remington’s own internal documents to ensure the true extent of the ever present danger to members of the class would be beyond their collective scope of knowledge. This joint effort was not in the best interest of the class to attempt to use this court as a shield to conceal these undeniable dangers from the public and the class after agreeing to permit Remington to deny any known danger or defects in the Walker fire control that has historically contributed to safety related malfunctions resulting in injury and death in the products subject to the class settlement.

4 February 4, 2015 hearing transcript – Page 16 – 18 Emphasis at page 17 beginning at line 23.


4

13. Class counsel’s individual and/or collective duty to millions of Remington rifle owners (the class collectively) was ignored when class counsel joined with Remington to attempt to conceal well documented facts contained within Remington’s own internal documents as part of the Pollard Settlement without authorization or consent of the class to do so. The information class counsel and Defendants sought to conceal as part of the settlement bears directly to Remington’s steadfast denials of any existing dangers in any of the rifles subject to the Pollard Settlement. This agreed provision was not in the best interest of the class when class counsel joined with Remington to attempt to deprive the class the ability to make well informed decisions to compel the class to return their rifles for a free retrofit while at the same time giving Remington plausible deniability to argue the rifles are “safe” only to diminish the return of rifles for a free retrofit thereby contradicting the terms and intent of the settlement itself. 14. Class counsel did not adequately represent the best interest of the class, individually and/or collectively, in spite of class counsel’s direct knowledge of the clear and present dangers associated to the Walker fire control learned through decades of collective personal injury and death litigation, including “after extensive review of the documents” relied upon to advance Pollard.5 In direct conflict to the best interest of the class, class counsel themselves attempted to deprive the public and the class critical informational resources to determine the facts for themselves. This provision only served to permit Remington to cast doubts in the minds of the class, to undermine the settlement through innuendo –statement that suggest to the public and class retrofit is not necessary or warranted because the rifles are safe and free of any defects. 15. The matters outlined in paragraphs one (1) through seven (7) above remain unresolved and should be adequately adjudicated by this court before the settlement is approved. In addition, after review of my previous letter, attachment (1) and after consideration of paragraphs one (1) through seven (7) above, and other information in the following paragraphs, I am requesting this court to sanction Remington and its counsel for their willful disregard for the integrity of the courts generally and to attempt to defile your court to secure the proposed settlement by use of alleged fraudulent statements. INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MY OBJECTIONS AND CONCERNS A. UNDISCLOSED XMP DEFECTS I have been following Pollard at arm’s length to see how the matter has advanced in my absence as a consulting expert to the class. Some of what I have learned about Pollard I find troubling. It appears to me potentially more deceitful and misleading statements have possibly been rendered in briefing to your court involving a claim –to the effect –the X Mark Pro (XMP) fire control defects have not resulted in any deaths at the time briefing was submitted to your

5 Unless specified otherwise, class counsel is in possession, including had an opportunity to review the same exact documents contained in both letters to this court.


5

court.6 I also hold the belief there is more to the XMP recall than meets the eye –information that possibly includes undisclosed defects that has been withheld from this court and not yet disclosed to the public.7 I also hold the belief there have been several accidents, to my knowledge, involving the XMP fire control that has resulted in the deaths of innocent victims. 8 This trend by Remington “to deny, delay and obfuscate,” as witnessed with Walker fire control litigation causes me great concern for the safety of the public, who will continue to suffer indescribable injuries and of course suffer death and dismemberment if this matter is not resolved properly. This especially holds true if the best interest of the class is not properly represented adequately by class counsel to represent the best interest of Remington bolt action rifle owners to the best of their ability. My previous statement also hold true if this court should not have the information necessary to adjudicate authority over this matter to ensure the best interest of the class is considered and well represented to advance their collective interests in this matter. B. POLLARD DISCOVERY From time to time, I have been inspired by a few justices to uphold the integrity of our system of justice, to punish those that might dare to defile the courts, or harm the public trust. You might not ever know, so I am telling you now, how much I admired your integrity at that moment you too chose to be a minority. This came after I read your order denying joint motion for protective order. Like me, to dare not follow the majority simply to justify a means to an end. I believe it shows great integrity not to follow the routine example of attorney’s or other judges who routinely sign off on Protective Orders, primarily because it is the path of least resistance. In doing so, by refusing to permit your court to be used as a shield to conceal undeniable dangers from the public, you set an example that all other judges should follow –decisions not to be taken lightly –when it comes to the safety and welfare of the public.

6 If it pleases the court, Google “Jasmine Thar,” a teenage girl killed and two (2) others wounded in 2011 by an alleged malfunction with an XMP fire control. (Attachment (2) “After teen’s controversial death, family will sue gunmaker.”) Remington has settled this case, but has again failed to inform this court of these facts. 7 During due diligence of the class, I was asked to draft an affidavit concerning what I believed to be product deficiencies with the XMP. I was forced to draft two versions because class counsel would not except the first version due to reference to what I contended to be alleged criminal conduct. This belief came after I met with an agent with the F.B.I. to seek a second unbiased opinion involving the research I assembled that shows Remington intentionally made fraudulent statements to the public in direct response to the CNBC Remington Under Fire documentary. It was apparent to the F.B.I. agent when he told me this was “an actionable matter.” These fraudulent statements were made with willful intent to deceive the public; and if relied upon by the public as fact, would serve to result in further loss of life. The shorter revised version, putting Remington on notice involving potential defects I had discovered was served on Plaintiff Class Counsel January 6, 2014. The XMP recall would follow roughly six (6) months later. (attachment (3) Long and (4) Short versions of Barber Affidavit provided to class counsel pursuant to their request January 6, 2014 ) 8 Also, if it pleases the court, Google “Shellsea Lefebre,” in this instance another child’s death where a Model 700 fitted with the XMP was involved in this fatal incident. I have done a case evaluation of this incident and do not believe the reporting in the articles were an accurate depiction of the events warranting criminal charges being filed against Shellsea’s father for her death. I am aware of others, but this is just a sample for the court to consider.


6

What you could not have known at the time, certain discovery in Pollard manifested from my research files commandeered by my counsel in the Barber defamation litigation. At no time did I relinquish direct control or custody of my research files to my counsel or the copy service provider. This was to preserve my invested interest in my personal and professional work product. 9 This resulted, I believe, when I refused to permit class counsel’s “computer guru” access to my research archive for scanning the entire collection of documents I have amassed to advance my knowledge of this subject matter. I personally performed all of the scanning of my personal research files produced to Remington in the Barber litigation to ensure, among other things, the integrity and security of my work product was scanned in no particular order. The measure was to only give Remington glimpses of how far reaching my research development has advanced. This measure was also to ensure the security and integrity of roughly thirteen (13) years my personal and professional research. This maneuver, to commandeer possession of the “Barber Documents” was initially accomplished without my direct knowledge, until after the fact. My counsel secured my research files without my initial knowledge or expressed or written consent. I felt helpless and betrayed by my counsel at the time but life goes on and one must endure hardship as well as successes to advance Pollard to the best of my ability. The Barber Documents would then come to be used in lieu of discovery in Pollard. I believe my research offers great advantage to anyone in possession of my work product, not only to further class counsel’s standing in Pollard, to compel Remington to settle this litigation but I would learn the advantages would extend to other counsel not at all associated to the Barber litigation. The Barber Documents, I would later learn, were distributed to all Pollard class counsel, to possibly advance their own standing to induce Remington to settle future individual injury and death litigation that occurs annually. The Barber Documents were shadow stamped and bates numbered so the production would be clearly distinguishable as my production to Remington in the Barber litigation. This discovery was served on Defendants without a protective order in effect by my design. This would, as the next logical step, permit me to argue that production of Barber discovery, without a stipulated protective order , would give me standing and the ability to raise valid and lawful claims the discovery became public documents when exchanged through the Barber litigation, to permit me to finally offer the information and my insights to the public. (attachment (5) Barber letter to Remington, re: Discovery production without benefit of Protective Order)10 After receipt of the letter from Remington, attachment (6), informing me what action the company, through their counsel intended to take against me, knowing I could not withstand

9 I am the only one who has the key to my developed insights because I am the one who painstakingly assembled these file on my own developed insights or has the files in their originally assembled form. This is not to say my files are not still valuable at the time they were scanned and digitized, they just don’t hold the level of chronological and topic specific detail as assembled in their original form in my research files after I personally sifted through potentially millions of pages of documents to boil the information down into its most basic and condensed chronological and topic specific form. 10 Also attached is Remington’s reply to my written notice, informing Remington, I held the belief and understanding my research files were no longer Remington Confidential Documents or protected from public inspection. (attachment (6) Remington letter to Barber)


7

their legal and financial might, I requested my counsel to advance this issue before the Barber court to question the confidentially of my research produced in discovery without a protective order. I would learn my activity to seek a judicial determination whether the Barber production were public documents was upsetting to Remington and possibly having a chilling effect on the pending class action settlement negotiations. Long story short, I was abandoned by my counsel as nobody stuck to the plan to see my work made available to the public. But as you will soon learn this would not be the end of my counsel’s activity to secure exclusive access to my research.11 C. CONCEALMENT OF THE BARBER RESEARCH DOCUMENTS IN POLLARD I feel I must now briefly outline the circumstances just how class counsel came to be in possession of roughly thirteen (13) years of my personal and professional research files in lieu of “discovery” in Pollard. This was largely accomplished through the Barber litigation, whereby, I produced roughly 490,000 pages of Remington’s own internal documents on Defendants, pursuant to the company’s discovery requests ordering me to produce this evidence. (attachment (5)12 This information and resources entails well over a decade of my personal and professional research files, gathered, digested and assembled chronologically and topic specific, largely at my own time and expense. This information was amassed to educate myself, first and foremost –information and insights that has given me standing as a nationally recognized authority of this subject matter that offers me exclusive opportunities through my contacts with the news media to continually inform the public about the hidden dangers in the Walker fire control system as my research advances. To my extreme shock and horror I would learn, as part of the Pollard Settlement, class counsel struck a deal which apparently included a hidden provision brokered jointly between Remington and class counsel. This hidden provision would be a joint effort to seal my research files and forever silence me once and for all when they collectively filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order in your court. I opine this was not in the best interest of the class to seal the only informational resources or silence the only person who could show the public and the class the true extent of the dangers posed by continuing to use rifles with the Walker fire control system. We would later learn it would be me to expose the alleged fraudulent statements at 11 I feel is worth briefly mentioning, Your Honor, pursuant to the Barber discovery requests, asking for in essence the same material Remington requested from me, Remington failed to produce a single page in the Barber litigation. 12 On a side note, Your Honor, I also feel it worthy of brief mention, my steadfast opposition to court secrecy and why I refused to agree to a Protective Order in the Barber defamation litigation –according to a local statute here in Montana, it is against public policy to enforce a Protective Order if the confidentially has the effect to conceal a known public hazard in our court system. The statute makes Protective Orders unenforceable, and/or against public policy here in Montana. I am quite familiar with this legislation, Your Honor, in that, I personally championed this Bill through two consecutive legislative sessions here in Montana, to finally see the measure passed into law in 2005.The statute is styled the “Gus Barber Anti Secrecy Act.” (MCA 2-6-1020 Concealment of Public Hazard Prohibited –Cited as: The Gus Barber Anti-Secrecy Act)


8

the February 4, 2015 hearing as being gross misrepresentations of fact to this court. This maneuver to seal this evidence, silence me, while at the same time, class counsel, agreed to permit Remington to publically deny any danger or defects in the Walker fire control is a gross contradiction in terms of the duty of class counsel to adequately and fairly represent the best interest of the class to the best of their collective ability in my humble opinion. 13 I might add, the Joint Motion for Protective Order in Pollard was filed against my wishes despite full disclosure, per my instructions to my counsel in the Barber litigation to inform Remington, under no circumstances would I ever agree to an uncontested Protective Order during discovery in the Barber Litigation surrounding my research work product. My counsel absolutely knew about my past efforts to secure the Gus Barber Anti-Secrecy Act, including my position, I would rather die than agree to uncontested secrecy in my own case. Thankfully, I was not put to the test! However, in the end, my counsel would get the last word to attempt seal my research from public inspection along with Remington’s desire to silence me to prevent me from sharing my research with the public. This news came as the greatest injury to me personally. This almost resulted in my total loss of faith in my fellow man, especially trial attorneys, when they somehow feel entitled to my research to possibly preserve what might be viewed as a stronger vested financial interest in my research than the public to settle the Pollard case and possibly future injury and death litigation. Rather than fight on behalf of the class to protect their interest, I would later get the distinct impression class counsel had no intention in fighting this issue in your court, but instead, the battle involving the safe utility of the Walker fire control would be waged in the court of public opinion after the settlement was secured, signed sealed a delivered by your court –A battle waged in the public domain without me or my informational resources to expose the facts to those most deserving of the information. To remedy the situation above, while I may now be, through necessity, retired from Remington bolt action rifle litigation, there is possibly a glimmer of great hope remaining for

13 It is no wonder why Remington might not want to engage in “protracted litigation” of this matter after reviewing what is contained in the discovery served on Remington in the Barber litigation. It would stand to reason and become paramount to conceal this evidence from the courts, the public; and members of the class to keep the return of rifles to manageable margins. This sequence of events leads me to believe, as part of the Pollard Settlement, a deal was brokered that would have the effect to seal my research files from public inspection and silence me forever to prevent me from sharing my insights with the public. This would also serve to give plaintiffs a monopoly on my research. Your Honor, please consider the ramifications to me, the public and the abuse on the courts (past and present) had the trial attorneys been successful with Remington in this joint venture to seal my work from public inspection as part of the Pollard settlement. Hypothetically, had you agreed to the Joint Motion for Protective Order, I would have been forever silenced, preventing me from disclosing my research through my news media resources under threat of being held in contempt of your court , even though no such order was signed in Pollard. This catastrophic blow to render me useless would come even though a tremendous body of the information was gathered, digested and assembled primarily at my own time and expense in its assembled form. This alleged maneuver would render me and my research useless and would forever protect Remington’s darkest secrets from ever being exposed; permitting Remington to continue to deceive the public, the class and abuse the courts unchallenged by anyone.


9

me and my family. My letter to this court might come to expose the historical misdeeds of Remington and possibly, I am optimistic, force a change in the conduct of Remington, ending their reign of deceit that has plagued the public and the courts for at least three (3) decades of litigation. Hopefully the information contained in this letter might serve to finally see justice done. However, on a brighter note, soon the entire collection of the documents produced to Remington in the Barber Litigation will be made publically available through a website to decisively end this national debate one and for all. (http://www.remingtondocuments.com) This collective body of my research will be publically available to anyone who wishes to see what only a small handful of people on earth have ever seen until now sealed from public inspection.14 This will hopefully be my last act as a public safety advocate to level the playing field for the public. Your Honor, this is how I intend to get my life back so my wife and me can put this issue behind us and move forward with what remains of our lives. My plan is simple, to completely obsolete myself by relinquishing control of the content of my research to the public class counsel jointly with Remington tried to conceal from the public and the class. This seems to be a fitting end to me. The public will inherit my research for free and for the first time in the history of this national debate, will have all the necessary information at their finger tips to draw their own conclusions as to the true extent of safe utility of the Walker fire control system, including learn the inherent dangers to guide them in their future purchase decisions or to compel class members to return their rifles for the free retrofit. It is said you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. It will remain to be seen if my effort to educate and inform the public will eventually be effective –if the public will only drink from the well of knowledge I have provided for them to learn the truth for themselves as I once did, one page at a time. I would also hope people might appreciate all the sacrifices made, lives lost; and families destroyed so that this collection of information could someday be available to the public. This information is to not only serve as a living memorial to my son, Gus, but to further serve as a warning to others, to show the true extent of what Remington knew, when they knew it; and what Remington did or did not do with this body of knowledge contained within their own internal documents. I hope this could be accomplished before it is too late for another family –however unrealistic –before another family must walk a mile in the shoes of those families who lost loved ones before them. Now only time will tell if my research can and will make a defining difference to save lives. But this is still a better chance than my family had sixteen (16) years ago when Gus was killed by a preventable accident had I only known a fraction of what is contained within my personal and professional research files.15

14 Previous Barber letter –“I am finally free” attachment (g) I am now asking this court to acknowledge these letters in the Pollard record and enter an order finding that, because Remington has agreed to public access, there is no longer good cause for any of the previously produced documents to be kept secret any longer. 15 The same year Gus was killed, I would learn of two (2) other accidents here in Montana, both involving the Model 700 rifle. I would contact the Wyoming Hunters Ed. Coordinator early the following year and learn that three (3) more Remington rifles were involved out of five (5) accidents. I would lean of more but this should give the court a good idea of the alarming trend I had discovered and why I felt the issue warranted further investigation.


10

D. THE MODEL 600 VOUCHER PROPOSAL IS NOT FAIR REASONABLE ADEQUATE OR IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLASS If not me then who, Your Honor, who else could even attempt such an undertaking, to expose the alleged misdeed of Defendants in your court or object to the Model 600 voucher proposal? The learning curve is just too steep and the depth of this issue simply too vast. It is simply too late to bring anyone else up to speed at this late stage of the game. The inaction of others to date, including class counsel, who failed to correct the faulty record in your court just would not listen to reason, supported by irrefutable facts involving a host of recommendations I made to them as the litigation advanced. This suggests to me there seems to be a shortage of individuals who might come forward, even if that individual knew a fraction of what I know.16 The events bringing us to this time and place in the history of Remington bolt action rifle litigation now leads us all to only one logical conclusion: the voucher proposal in the proposed class settlement appears to be nothing more than a sham with the possible overtones to perpetuate a fraud not only your court but the population of Remington rifles owners looking to you to adjudicate authority over this matter, to ensure their rights and collective interests are fairly represented. Here, the rights of Model 600 series rifle owners were bargained way with intent to let “old Remington” evade taking responsibility to modify the Model 600 series rifles with a suitable safer alternative fire control under an already outstanding and open recall.17 Anyone considering such an undertaking to challenge the proposed voucher proposal would have to be willing to undertake this action knowing he or she will end up taking a severe beating by both parties now that plaintiff and Remington counsel are joined to secure the settlement against anyone just for trying. All the while collective preemptive measures were taken to silence me and seal my research, it was you that questioned the adequacy and fairness of the Model 600 voucher proposal and expressed genuine concern for the safety of the public. This was not anticipated within the design of the proposed settlement, so Remington did what they have historically done when cornered, the company, through it’s counsel lied and cheated with intent to deceive. I say this because anyone involved with Remington bolt action rifle litigation, for any period of time, should surely know –with varying degrees of knowledge –the entire Model 600 series (including the XP -100 bolt action pistol) are already the subject of an outstanding and open “RECALL” as of October 25, 1978.18 If gasoline can be used as an accelerant to start a fire, the Model 600 recall was surely the accelerant to ignite Remington 16 I have had many conversations with class counsel surrounding the alleged fraudulent events that occurred in your court on February 4, 2015. I finally gave up trying to reason with any of them after my last conversation last December. Even though it has been acknowledge Remington counsel lied to the court with willful intent to deceive you, the conversation always come back to it will be my fault if the settlement somehow falls apart, nobody will get paid and none of the rifles will get fixed. 17 “old Remington” was the principal owner of Remington Arms Company prior to a limited asset sale that took place in the latter part of 1993, whereby, Remington’s parent company, DuPont, sold certain income producing assets to an investment group at that time. Certain liabilities, to include, discontinued products and certain liability like the Model 600 series rifles were retained by the sellers. You will observe I will make an important distinction between “old Remington” (prior to the 1993 sale) and “new Remington” (after the 1993 limited asset sale) later in this letter. 18 Previous Barber letter – attachment (b)


11

bolt action rifle litigation after a 6.8 million dollar settlement was paid to plaintiff, John Coates, in 1978. (Coates v. Remington) To the best of my knowledge, this remains the largest settlement ever awarded by any firearm manufacturer to settle a single claim. 19 As Remington’s own internal documents clearly speak volumes for themselves, at the time, Remington did in fact modify the Model 700 fire control to retrofit to the Model 600 series in 1978.20 And today, if Remington represents to this court, the X Mark Pro (XMP) can readily be retrofitted to all the older Model 700s, we should all assume with a reasonable degree of certainty, if in fact Remington made the same exact modifications to the XMP, made to the Model 700 fire control in 1978, clearly and convincingly indicate beyond any reasonable doubt, the XMP retrofit can be achieved if they wanted to make good on their outstanding obligation to recall and retrofit the Model 600 series rifles in the hands of the unsuspecting public. These facts, described above, clearly show Remington could make the retrofit with some effort and expense, but simply don’t want to or simply won’t live up to the company’s responsibility and obligation to retrofit without being compelled to do so in spite of the recognized danger to the public. I am baffled, Your Honor, because apparently plaintiff class counsel must somehow agree with Remington in spite of an email sent to CNBC talking about the legal obligation to retrofit products subject to a recall. Here, Mr. Lanier, is quoted saying to the CNBC:

“A lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Mark Lanier of Houston, confirmed in an e-mail that the settlement agreement does not include a recall, and does not prevent Remington from continuing to use the design in question.

"A recall is something with legal obligations and indicates an accepted defect," Lanier wrote. "Here, Remington does not believe the firing mechanisms are defective, and there are experts and customers who agree with them.” 21 The context of the entire article can be seen at: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/08/remington-dont-call-gun-fix-a-recall.html Further baffling and confusing statements come into question in spite of what was known about the Model 600 series recall, by both sides, at the time the false representations were made before your court on February 4, 2015. 22 At least this is what I gathered from the collaborative talking points by both parties at the hearing, propounding what they collectively felt to be an adequate

19 Overview of sequence of events after Remington’s insurance carried settled the Coates case in 1978: As a result of the Coates settlement, the insurance carrier cancelled Remington’s liability insurance. After the settlement amount was given wide circulation by the news media, Remington finally recalled the 600 series, three years after the audits were conducted. DuPont was forced to self insure Remington’s liability and would merge Remington into a division or DuPont. This is where the cover-up began, by old Remington as a result of these events. 20 Previous Barber letter – attachment (f) 21 Obviously I am not one of those “experts” who agree the Walker fire control is safe, even though I was hired as the lead historical expert by class counsel to advance the contentions of plaintiffs through their counsel. 22 I want to reemphasize here, no officer of the court informed you or breathed a word about the recall of the Model 600 series rifles in 1978.


http://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/08/remington-dont-call-gun-fix-a-recall.html

12

and equitable bargain for Model 600 rifle owners. 23 I disagreed with class counsel then and continue to believe now, the Model 600 voucher proposal in not reasonable, adequate or fair resolution to the proposed settlement. The mutually agreed bargain for settlement not only offers a voucher –in lieu of retrofit –but further includes a gun safety instructional video –what a joke, Your Honor. This only serves to add more insult to injury to the overall effectiveness of the agreed settlement proposal. This comes in light of the fact certainly members of class counsel knows this is exactly what Remington did in 1978 when the company neglected to recall the Model 700, in spite of the known dangers as part of the 600 series rifle recall.24 At this time in history evidence shows the company was fielding hundreds of complaints from customers claiming the Model 700 fired without the trigger being pulled in response to the Model 600 recall announcement. (attachment (7) series of chronological documents showing Remington was receiving complaint on the Model 700 as a result of the 600 recall) Instead of recalling the Model 700 rifle, Remington revised the “10 commandments of Firearm Safety.” This scheme was so Remington could blame accidents involving the Walker fire control on their customers as violating one of the tenants of firearm safety as the primary cause and contributor of injury and death. Even though Remington’s attorney’s denied this well documented fact publically, in their 2.2 million dollar response to Remington Under Fire. The facts do not lie, Your Honor, people do. This scheme was designed to prevent the public from ever knowing the true details of what Remington did instead of recalling all the rifles fitted with the Walker fire control, only to prevent their client from taking responsibility for their actions and conduct that would be foreseeable and certain to result in future loss of life. (attachment (8) Remington Facts Statement), (attachment (9) mass chronological evidence showing Remington’s revisions to the “10 Commandments of Firearm Safety” Remington pocket safety guide revisions) The above evidence clearly illustrates beyond any reasonable doubt –contrary to what Remington told the pubic in response to my statement to CNBC in 2010 –instead of changing or modifying the Model 700 fire control to prevent future accidents, Remington merely changed the “rules” of firearm safety so the company could blame Remington rifle owners for foreseeable accidents as a primary defense. This has been very effective propaganda tool for Remington to point blame elsewhere but there can be little doubt this defensive maneuver came about when Remington physically came to the realization internally, the root cause of accidental discharge with its signature product, the Model 700, was by firing on safety release. This would become known (to Remington) as the most common malfunction attributed to any product fitted with the Walker fire control system as evidenced eleven (11) months before the subject fire control was released to the public. (attachment (10) April 1947 Pilot Line Inspection)

23 Previous Barber letter attachment (a) Pages 16 - 19 collective statements to advance the voucher proposal 24 I believe this facet was covered topics I outlined in one of several in person briefing and presentations I did for the class to bring counsel up to speed on the subject matter.


13

In response to Remington Under Fire, Remington attorneys claimed: “CNBC also relied upon 60-year-old-documents created during the developmental and pilot phase for its proposition that the Remington 700 Walker trigger mechanism is unsafe. To the contrary, these documents underscore Remington’s long-standing commitment to safety through its programs of pre-production testing of its products.” Again what the public could not know is, fire on safety release (FSR) malfunctions were still occurring on both the Model 600 and 700 rifles during testing twenty eight (28) years after the 1947 document (“the 60 year-old- document”) was generated –And even after, the FSR malfunctions in the Walker fire control continued. (attachment (11) May 2, 1975 listing of Gallery Safety Malfunctions) This scheme to revise the Ten Commandments of Firearm Safety instead of recalling the Model 700 rifle was instituted in spite of Remington’s full knowledge of what the company actually knew about “accidental discharge” being the single most likely cause and contributor of firearm related accidents. Here are the true facts of what Remington knew when the company actively revised the Ten Commandments of Firearm Safety: “A common source of accidents with firearms in accidental discharge. A safety mechanism is provided to insure against accidental discharge…” (attachment (12) Safety Mechanism Shock Test –1944 – revised 1969) Remington reaffirms this reality in 2014 in the XMP recall notice: “Any unintended discharge has the potential to cause injury or death. Immediately cease use of the recalled rifles and return them to Remington…” (attachment (13) XMP Recall Notice 2014)25 As you can now see for yourself, Your Honor, the Firearm Safety DVD given along with the Model 600 voucher, instead of a retrofit of a safer alternative fire control system is not any “real value” to anyone but Remington. Nor has Remington individual injury and death litigation history shown this concession by the class will further prevent or serve to deter all foreseeable accidents with Remington rifles fitted with the Walker fire control system. The only way to prevent accidents is to repair the rifles through a retrofit with a safer alternative fire control system as offered to the majority of the class. Anything less is not reasonable, fair or adequate for the unsuspecting Model 600 rifle owners. For this reason, I feel it necessary for me to object to the proposed settlement subject to the voucher proposal and to ask this court to see to it the Model 600 rifles are properly repaired in light of the foregoing facts brought to the attention of this court. E. INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF THE MODEL 600 SUB CLASS

25 Even though Remington admits accidental discharges are the primary cause of firearm accidents, they make a clear distinction this somehow should not apply to the Walker fire control systems at the center of the Pollard litigation or the large population of individual injury and death litigation that occurs annually.


14

Your Honor, I believe the information contained in this section of my letter will strongly suggest class counsel has possibly rendered themselves unfit and/or possibly grossly ineffective to represent the subclass of Model 600 rifles owners. What everyone seem to forget or has altogether chosen to ignore is I own a host of Remington rifles, some functional target rifles, sporting rifles, while others are exemplars to show as examples involving functional deficiencies in these rifles that fail Remington’s own testing protocols. The rifles range from Models, 721, 660, multiple Model 700s, to include 40X target rifles. Also included are semi custom rifles manufactured by other manufactures who have installed Walker fire control systems purchased from Remington. As an expert to the class and class member,(Remington rifle owner) my concerns and opinions were largely ignored throughout this litigation, especially involving the topic of the 600 voucher proposal. What was class counsel thinking when they agreed to this provision without asking a single member of the class if the $12.50 voucher was an acceptable resolution to a single class member, instead of a retrofit for a safer alternative fire control system.26 As class counsel, this was not theirs to bargain away on behalf of roughly a quarter million dangerous and defective rifle owners. Assuming class counsel knew what I have now outlined in two (2) consecutive letters, it would appear they not only let Remington off the hook to retrofit these dangerous rifles under an already outstanding and open recall, but further gave Remington counsel a pass to dare attempt to defile your court without rebuttal –hardly an “adversarial arms length relationship” between the parties it would appear when you comprehend the following insights not readily known by the Model 600 class or this court. Here, hypothetically, I offer just a sample of examples of how class counsel could have responded at the February 4, 2015 hearing if the best interest of the Model 600 class were possibly being represented to the best of their ability. The quotes cited hereafter are in class counsels own words, clearly indicating a reasonable rebuttal to Mr. Sherks false and misleading statements in your court. This evidence will also serve to demonstrate to the court what was individually and/or collectively known at the time the false and misleading statements were made before your court, to answer your own concern for the safety of the public involving the voucher proposal. Let us all not forget, plaintiff class counsel, (any one of them) including other Remington counsel present had at least ten (10) months following the February 4, 2015 hearing to correct the faulty record, but not a single officer of the court came forward, breathed a word or offered briefing to correct the faulty statements before your court outlining the potential misdeed of Remington counsel. I did, Your Honor, the person with the least faith in our system, without a vested financial interest in the outcome, either way, but at the risk of becoming part of the problem and not part of ultimate the solution, it was me who reluctantly came forward to show

26 I believe this statement would hold true if the Model 600 class representative were questioned about the voucher proposal being a fair and equitable bargain for themselves, let alone the rest of the population of Model 600 series rifle owners. Even if I am mistaken, I must object to the voucher proposal.


15

this court what remained outside your comprehension to attempt to serve the best interests of others. The following are allegations in a petition (Barrere v. Remington et. al.) by members of class counsel present at the February 4th hearing, evidence I now bring forward to the attention of the court, to show among other things: (a) examples of physically what was known by class counsel, individually and/or collectively, at the time the false and misleading statements were rendered in your court by Remington counsel, and (b), the type of statements I would have expected of counsel representing the class to the best of their collective ability, including the population of a quarter million Model 600 rifle owners in direct rebuttal to Remington’s outlandish and contemptuous claims: the Model 600 rifles are safe, fire appropriately; and given the age of these rifles, Your Honor, you would think we would have known about a problem by now. 38. “Defendants have deceived Plaintiffs [this court] and the public by claiming they have no knowledge of the dangerous and defective conditions involving the use of the Walker fire control…” 69. “Defendants further knowingly made false representations [to this court] concerning the safety of the Rifle, and concealed material facts [from this court] concerning the fact that the rifles could fire without a trigger pull…” 76. “Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the problems with Remington Model 600 rifles after the fire control had been replaced under Defendants [1978] recall program, in particular the Rifle’s propensity to unexpectedly discharge without pulling the trigger, such that the danger was known or, at minimum, was reasonably foreseeable, but negligently failed to warn Plaintiffs [or this court] of the Rifles dangerous condition.” 81. “Defendants further made representations [to this court] concerning the safety of the Remington Model 600 rifle after the fire control was replaced under Defendants’ [1978] recall program with knowledge of its falsity, and concealed material facts [from this court] concerning the fact that the rifles could fire without a trigger pull causing injury to [future] Plaintiffs [and members of the class as this court suspected.] (attachment (14) Sharon J. Barrere and Brice Barrere v. Remington et. al. Petition)27 27 You will observe, Your Honor, Sharon Barrere, was injured after her Model 600 rifle was returned and retrofitted with a modified Model 700 fire control system under the 1978 recall. In Remington’s response to Remington Under Fire, Remington’s attorney’s acknowledge, almost boastfully, what I have been saying in this letter: “The trigger mechanism of the Model 600 rifle at the time of the recall was different than the Model 700 trigger mechanism. In fact, when Remington recalled the Model 600 rifle, it replaced the Model 600 trigger mechanism with the Model 700 trigger mechanism.” (attachment (15) ”Remington Fact” statements --2010) The same attorney who was actively involved with the Remington Under Fire response, cited above, was in your court when other Remington counsel (Mr. Sherk) told you the Model 600 rifles are “safe.” What Remington has again failed to tell the public, the Model 700 was also experiencing FSR malfunctions similar to the Model 600 rifles because both employ variants of the Walker fire control, both susceptible to similar forms of malfunctions resulting from the same design deficiencies. (attachment (11) 1975 Safety Gallery report)


16

My previous letter to your court, December 10, 2015 clearly shows what Remington in fact knew ( December 10, 2015 Barber Letter) but only now might the court understand what plaintiff counsel generally knew at the same time the alleged fraudulent statements were rendered in your court. As you have now seen for yourself, Your Honor, at no time did class counsel challenge the faulty statements, offer a plausible rebuttal in spite of what was known at the time or do what every Model 600 class member might have considered reasonable and prudent to fulfill the individual and/or collective duty as what the class might have expected of class counsel to represent their interest – and yet, nothing but silence, why? I request the court to now demand answers to these troubling questions surely deserving of answers by all concerned. As officers of the court, every single attorney in your court during or who read the transcript afterword, as I did, absolutely knew and understood their ethical obligations to this court to correct any misleading statements known to them at the time or learned later that would have the ultimate effect to create a faulty record or might advance deceitful or fraudulent conduct that had direct effect, if left unchallenged, to mislead you personally and defile your court. Given my extensive knowledge of this subject matter, I believe everyone at the hearing not only betrayed my trust, the class’ but also the trust of your court and I for one believe we are all due an explanation before the proposed settlement is approved. I am perplexed by the conduct I have witnessed here, Your Honor, in light of the fact, I believe Plaintiffs held the best possible hand after securing my research files, albeit, information not rightfully theirs to possess, simply to give something even more important up that was not theirs to bargain away to advance the settlement. It appears class counsel took more pity on Remington’s current situation over that of the very people they represent in Pollard as a consensus existed, “We need Remington to survive, because only if they survive does the fix get implemented.” But even if Remington does survive the predicament they themselves created and the rifles are not properly repaired, does not amount to a fix either, does it? Who pities the poor souls who will be maimed or killed if these rifles are not properly repaired or the public is not properly warned about the inherent dangers of these rifles, Your Honor, in light of the fact, Remington, is still being permitted to claim the rifles fitted with the Walker fire control are “safe,” without rebuttal or challenge. To date, even though I have done my best to inform this court and the class through the insights contained in my previous letter, the proposed settlement should not be approved on what was known to be a lie to trick this court into approving the proposed settlement in its current form. F. OMISSIONS IN THE PREVIOUS BARBER LETTER The Honorable Anna J. Brown, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon sums up my belief that the entire system of justice is in peril when she stated in a hearing surrounding fraud on a court I worked to reopen some thirty two (32) years after the trial resulted in a defense verdict.


17

“The allegations are grave. The consequences severe, here. Our entire system [of justice] depends upon the ability of adversaries to rely upon the ethics and integrity of opposing counsel, and for the court to do that.” (attachment (16) page 28 hearing transcript See v. Remington et. al. Case No. 3:13-CV-1765-BR July 11, 201428 The irrefutable facts brought to the attention of the court in my December 10, 2015 letter, clearly contradict what Mr. Sherk told the court in the February 4th hearing, not only as decisively untrue, but collective statements that were made with what appears to be willful intent to deceive the court.29 I find it disturbing frankly, Mr. Sherk’s, misleading and untruthful statements were not challenged by a single plaintiff attorney representing the class with superior knowledge beyond the courts comprehension, supposedly representing the best interest of class –but at the end of the day, the false and misleading statements even if through ineffective class counsel cannot be ignored or left unchallenged to stand as fact by someone who knows facts from fiction, the difference between right and wrong or someone who is willing to act for the greater good of others. To prove my simple point –something both Remington and plaintiff counsel knew or should have known –here are pictures of an XMP fire control installed in a Model 600 action without modification to the action or barrel as suggested by Remington counsel as the primary reason the XMP cannot be economically retrofitted to the 600 rifles. (attachment (17) pictures of a XMP installed in a Model 600 action S/N A6483565) From my limited testing to date, the XMP fire control performs flawlessly in the Model 600 receiver. 30 Here Remington tells its outside gunsmiths performing the Model 700 fire control retrofit to the Model 600 rifles during the 1978 recall, the repair was estimated to take about “ten (10) minutes.” (in the record previous Barber letter as attachment (b) October 24, 1978 Memo) As an expert to the class, I pointed out what I considered to be an obvious means to retrofit the XMP to the Model 600 series rifles that I believe Remington is already obligated to repair under the 1978 recall to several attorneys representing the class, however, my proposal fell on deaf ears31 If there were any doubts or questions about Remington’s misleading statements before your court in the minds of class counsel at the time, there could be little doubt shortly thereafter. I called (then) lead class counsel and informed him and others of what I knew to be deceitful statements by Remington with willful intent to deceive the court about the Model 600 series

28 The See case went to trial in 1982 and resulted in a defense verdict. I developed this case between the years 2012-13, to prove or disprove my developed theory after unsealing a Montana case styled Aleksich v. Remington in 2012. My theory at the time: Remington committed fraud and discovery abuse on every court predating the 1995 Aleksich settlement. As in this instance complained about in the Pollard court. It has been my experience this is a road well traveled by Remington, to lie, cheat and deceive when cornered. I would encourage this court to review this case to lay my foundation what you have experienced in your court is not an isolated incident. I will include more information at the end of this letter so the court may come to appreciate the extraordinary measures, Remington, through is past and present counsel have gone to mislead the courts as complained of here in your court. 29 Previous Barber letter – start at page 4 under “My Finding” thru page 5 30 Previous Barber letter – attachment (e) 31 I want to reemphasize to this court, if Remington made the same exact modifications to the XMP, made to the Model 700 fire control to retrofit to the 600 series in 1978, the rifles could be retrofitted with the XMP.


18

being “safe” rifles. In conversations over the next few days I outlined the 1978 recall and my belief Remington could retrofit the Model 600 rifles with the XMP fire control. Again I was ignored and would be shocked to learn my statements with class counsel were perceived to be “adversarial to the class” which resulted in class counsel demanding I would not object to the Model 600 voucher proposal in a sworn affidavit. This demand by my counsel came under threat of counsel withdrawing representation in the Barber litigation unless I did what I was being instructed to do. I was told my comments and beliefs, resulting from the February hearing, including my opinion about the Model 600 voucher proposal were described to me as a “conflict of interest” to the class. I was further told –in no uncertain terms –unless I surrendered to demands to stop talking to the news media or executed an affidavit claiming to support the class settlement –in light of what I knew –representation involving my families case against Remington would be withdrawn unless I swore under oath I would not write such a letter to this court or object to the 600 voucher proposal. Our lead attorney in the Barber case made good on his threat and withdrew from the Barber litigation, citing a conflict of interest because I did not execute the affidavit as instructed by my handlers or submit to their demands or direct control. I would be forced to go forward with what I considered to be junior member of my litigation team, not as well seasoned or with the resources to advance the Barber litigation.32 My wife was devastated at the prospect this would not be the end of my involvement with the Remington issue. As you see, my activity in Remington rifle litigation serves as a constant and painful reminder to her of the loss of our son, Gus, preventing us from moving forward with our lives knowing of gross the injustice that has permitted this issue to continue. I believe in light of the seriousness of contentions made in my first letter, given the gravity of the allegations Barber counsel should have immediately withdrawn from Pollard to assist me in any manner possible to uphold the honor and integrity of this court and assisted me to bring forth the insights in this new letter that shows a pattern of misconduct by Remington to have the willful intent to defile the Federal Courts. But as history now shows this was not done and again I find myself on my own to correct this injustice without benefit of my previous counsel. Lines have clearly been drawn now, and I am forced to draw my line in the sand here in your court or be faced with the prospect of blood on my hands in the future for my inaction –something I just cannot in good conscience bring myself to live with. The Model 600 rifles in the field pose a clear and present danger to the public if not modified, again not because I say so, Your Honor, as previously outlined in my first letter, because Remington admits this fact in its own internal documents.33 For good measure, to clarify my talking point, in a Remington “Confidential” document dated October, 25, 1978, Remington goes as far as to admit a ”potential safety hazard” exists in the family of 600 series rifles as their primary motivation for initiating the 1978 recall: 32 It came as a real emotional relief to me when the Barber litigation was finally dismissed once and for all. I was again free to do I do best, to unearth the facts associated to Remington rifle deficiencies and to act for the greater good of others to disseminate information as an information resource to the public through the news media without further restraint and barriers created by my counsel. 33 Previous Barber letter –pg. 7 - 1st paragraph (attachment (e)


19

“In view of the potential safety hazard, the company is recalling all of those guns [Model 600 Series Rifles]produced prior to February 1975…” (Previous Barber letter attachment (b) Recall Notice –Bates No. R2543624 Confidential –Subject to Protective Order Kinzer v. Remington) I contend the proposed settlement is not fair, adequate and reasonable in light of the fact Remington is already obligated to retrofit this population of Model 600 rifles without cost to the owner under an already outstanding and open recall. Further, Defendants willfully attempted to secure the proposed settlement by use of fraudulent testimony, and class counsel had no standing to bargain away the rights of the Model 600 sub class when they knew or should have known the Model 600 series rifles are “dangerous” and are already the subject of an outstanding and open recall as of October 1978. G. MY STANDING TO OBJECT AND TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ALLEGED ABUSE ON THIS COURT Generally I am satisfied with the overall settlement, with the primary objection to the merit of the proposed settlement is the voucher proposal involving the 600 series rifles. I own one such rifle, a Model 660. According to my records, this rifle was manufactured in June of 1968.34 The rifle is an exemplar in my collection of defective Remington rifles so I may demonstrate how Remington rifles fail and the root cause. My rifle stands as a clear and convincing contradiction to what you were told by Remington counsel, leading this court to believe the Model 600 series rifles are “safe” because this Model 660 rifle fails Remington own diagnostic testing protocols. This includes both the “trick test” and “screwdriver test” from full safe position – considered a worst case test –clearly indicating the fire control contains the same functional deficiencies Remington itself determined to exist during the 1975 audits.35 I also own a variety of other Remington rifles, including Model 700 rifles that fail the same tests as the Model 660 described above. (attachments (18) 1980 PSSC Meeting Minutes - Trick and Screwdriver testing), (attachment (19) Tricking/FSR in chronological mass), ( attachment (20)Screwdriver Testing in chronological mass); H. LITIGATION IS NOT A GAME SAYS ONE JUDGE “Litigation is not a game. It is the time-honored method of seeking the truth, finding the truth, and doing justice. When a corporation and its counsel refuse to produce directly relevant information an opposing party is entitled to receive, they have abandoned these basic principles in favor of their own interests.36 The little voice in every attorney’s conscience that murmurs turn over all material information was ignored…Those consequences, however, are a direct result of repeated, deliberate decisions by [X], [Y], and [Z defendants] to delay the production of relevant information, make misleading and false in-court statements, and conceal 34 Date Code: PR= 6/68 Ser. Num. 116XXX 35 Previous Barber letter attachment (c) 36 1 See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 166 (1986) (lawyer's "duty is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth").


20

relevant documents. Mr.[X], Mr. [Y] and [Z defendants] will surely be disappointed, but they cannot be surprised.” U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Judge Silver Order: Haeger v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. Case 2:05-cv-02046-ROS Doc. 1073 November 8, 2012 While I am not overly shocked by the lengths Remington might stoop to deceive any court to advance the company’s interests, as I have now demonstrated up to this point in my letter, it has historically always been left to the plaintiff attorneys to keep this conduct in check when suspected or caught red handed. This has been accomplished by requesting sanctions against Remington –the difference here –we have just not witnessed what I believe to be an adversarial willingness to hold Remington accountable for the company’s willful disregard for the rules of civil procedure or to enforce the rules of ethical conduct by officers of the court typically brought about by a healthy adversarial relationship that appears to be lacking here. I believe to represent the best interest of the Model 600 class, plaintiff class counsel was obligated to challenge Remington when untruthful representation of facts were submitted to your court as we have witnessed –And for the forgoing reasons the court should do something to find the truth to find out why no one other than an outside member of the class has came forward to correct the faulty record or offer rebuttal to Remington counsels false and deceptive claims. Of one thing we can all be certain, Your Honor, if you are going to play with fire you will eventually get burned from time to time. This is demonstrated by Remington’s continual –as evidenced in your court –flagrant and willful disregard for the integrity of the courts generally. Remington’s past conduct has resulted in some very serious sanctions being imposed on Remington –when caught by people truly adversarial to Remington in past litigation. These are only the cases where Remington has been “caught red handed” to attempt to force this company to change its wicked ways. Past sanctions have ranged from a slap on the wrist to defense verdicts being overturned. In Craig v. Remington, the judge overturned the defense verdict and ordered a new trial with adverse inference the rifle was defective, causative to the accident; and the Craig court struck all Remington’s motions and pleadings –thereby denying Remington the ability to defend itself at the new trial. Remington did what it has always done to avoid responsibility for its willful conduct to defile the courts; the company has historically been given a pass –permitted to buy their way of serious sanction risk by settling the cases. To date, sanctions imposed on Remington has proven to be only the cost of doing business for this company and has not deterred this pattern of egregious conduct from reoccurring as evidenced in your court . Apparently Remington must hold the belief it must be better to pay the sanction of the courts for discovery abuse, fraudulent statements to the courts and settle fraud on the court claims rather than the verdict by the jury to protect Remington’s secrets from coming to light if the truth were revealed through a public trial where the information would become a matter of public record.37 (attachment (21) Sanction Orders) I am asking this court to send a clear and convincing message to Remington and its counsel to definitively demonstrate these continued patterns of this misconduct, when exposed, will not

37 If it pleases the court, review: See v. Remington et. al. Case No. 3:13-CV-1765-BR --also Footnote 28


21

be tolerated in our courts now or in the future. It is time Remington finally learned this hard lesson, if you are going to play with fire you will eventually get burned. I also ask this court that the proposed settlement should not advance until this matter to advance the proposed settlement through the use of fraudulent statements is resolved. I. MY SINCERE ATTEMPT TO AVOID CONFLICT, WRITE THIS LETTER OR TO BECOME AN OBJECTOR TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT I feel so strongly about Remington’s prior responsibility and obligation to repair the 600 series rifles, I took it upon myself to contact Remington’s defense counsel, Dale G. Wills, whom I have known for a number of years to discuss this subject in August. To his credit, Dale told me he could not talk to me directly but only through my counsel. I informed Dale I am not currently represented by counsel at this time. I requested that he not speak but just listen to me. He honored my request to speak and he just listen. I told him what I have generally outlined to you in this letter to this point, in non-threatening tone. I did not raise any of the issues outlined in this letter about the alleged abuse on this court or my consideration of becoming a potential objector to the proposed settlement. This would have been deemed as combative or threatening so I avoided these subjects all together as non-constructive topics. However, I did describe the turn of events surrounding the Model 600 recall in 1978. I assured, Dale, my beliefs are “irrefutable facts,” which I strongly believe he already knew, and with that, continued to inform him I generally support the settlement to retrofit rifles with the XMP fire control. I also described generally, I believe the XMP can be retrofitted to the population of Model 600 rifles already the subject of the outstanding 1978 recall. Last, I asked Dale to request his client consider my proposal to repair the Model 600 rifles, to among other things, ease the Pollard court’s concerns about the voucher proposal, in that, after review of my December 10, 2015 letter, the court possibly understands the company is already obligated to fix these rifles with some form of retrofit. I informed Dale if this could be accomplished, I would forever be done with this issue. At no time did I ask for anything for myself other than this concession to repair the Model 600 rifles. Your Honor, I made the call to Dale in good faith, with great hope and limited expectation I would not have to write this letter objecting to the class settlement or voucher proposal. To my credit, at least I tried to avoid this conflict with what I consider to have been reasonable suggestions and requests guided by irrefutable fact as to Remington’s current obligation to repair a population of roughly a quarter of a million rifles in the hands of the public already subject to recall. I guess I was not really all that shocked they blew me off or that I never received any kind of response from Dale, Remington or class counsel to my request –to avoid this conflict –which I feel was at least deserving of an answer one way or another from someone. J. CAN ONE PERSON POSSIBLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE? I have been told since beginning my journey, October 23, 2000, one person cannot make a difference or effect change so why bother trying. If my previous statements above hold true,


22

then why is trying to do the right thing made so complicated and difficult, when in reality, for the justice system to carry out its intended function to find the truth someone must be willing to commit to personal sacrifice to see justice served for the greater good of others. In the end someone always has to pay the price for others to benefit. I believe I have paid my dues. Through the years I have evolved from a victim, public safety advocate, now today, possibly the most knowledgeable person involving the history of this subject matter outside Remington itself. With the death of a host of Remington retirees I have interviewed, including one of my most prized mentors like Richard C. Miller, who took Remington’s secretes to the grave with them, my work in this area remains more important than ever. I believe, with special knowledge comes even a greater responsibility to others to protect human life at all cost, to prevent there from being more Gus Barbers, if only through education of the facts involving irrefutable dangers documented within the pages of Remington’s own internal documents, until now sealed from public inspection.38 It is hard to determine my overall effectiveness in this endeavor. While I may never truly come to know the number of people who have been spared a similar fate as Gus –an ”immeasurable number” I have been told –I have been able to count the families that lost loved ones year after year, some of which contact me for answers, as I once sought for myself. Some of the images of their gruesome deaths or debilitating injuries are burned into my mind which serves as a constant reminder of the stakes involved, especially for failure if I were to continue to remain dormant and not speak to what I have learned in the past sixteen (16) years. I am somehow inspired by these people to level the playing field to defend those not able to protect themselves from foreseeable harm. Something drastic has to be done resulting in shattered families to break the cycle of injury and death. K. A FEW WORDS IN MY OWN DEFENSE Contrary to what will most likely be claimed as a defense to my collective letters, money has not been my singular guiding motivation to expose the injustice against the public and the courts.39 I believe my actions over the past sixteen (16) years to advance my theories and knowledge in discovery, as a paid consulting expert, or to balance my moral obligation to bring public awareness to functional deficiencies in Remington bolt action rifles through the news media, without compensation, clearly speaks for itself. I have tried to live up to the promise –a curse really – I made to Gus three days after his death, whereby, I looked Gus straight in the

38 Previous Barber letter –“I am free” –attachment (g). Until now I have been forced to represent the best interests of the public and defend my reputation for truthfulness and the integrity of my research with my hands tied behind my back, but no more, I am now finally free to educate and inform with all the evidence I have amassed. 39 While I believe my standing to make such a blanket claim may be tarnished by my desire to finally put this issue behind me at one time, through continual badgering by my counsel to make a settlement offer in the Barber litigation as the Pollard settlement was being finalized. I did in fact authorize counsel to make an offer to settle the Barber litigation. In my defense, I did come to my senses and instructed counsel to notify Remington I was withdrawing my offer after the badgering by another member of my counsel never ceased to ask for more and more concessions be made on my part to settle the Barber litigation. I would come to realize what I was doing was akin to making a deal with the devil to justify a means to an end.


23

eye and promised my son: “it ends here and now, I will never be bought off or ever quit until I have affected change in your memory.” I have tried to remain true to my promise and this purpose, to remain a father Gus can still be proud to call his father even though he is not with me in the flesh to hold me to my promise. While the correct path has not always been clear cut or an easy one to negotiate to best of all involved, including my family, I have tried to advance this national debate to the best logical conclusion for everyone. I suspect Remington counsel may try to portray me as an individual motivated solely by money when my counsel compelled me to make a settlement demand in the Barber defamation litigation. To say that settlement of litigation suggests greed or motivation solely for monetary or personal financial gain is preposterous –almost laughable really –in that this is how the civil litigation game has been played by all since the beginning of time. Everyone is reaping residual profit and income but not past, present and future plaintiffs. This is how the system was designed to punish the guilty or resolve disputes only through monetary compensation. Remington attempts to redirect attention to plaintiffs knowing this is how the game is played but acting as if they themselves provide defense services to Remington out of the kindness of their hearts. My reality, nobody wants this cash cow to end, because Remington bolt action rifle litigation has proven itself to be a good residual source of income for the trial attorneys on both sides of the isle. Everyone has been milking this cash cow on all four teats for decades while the public is suffering death and dismemberment; while Remington continues to suffer substantial financial losses annually. This is money that could have been better utilized to repair rifles had they not listened to what I contend to be bad advice of whom ever is directing Remington down this slippery slope. I strongly suspect –Remington counsel gets paid win, lose or draw for billable hours and not on contingency like trial lawyers, but of one thing I am certain, people are getting rich off the pain and suffering of families like mine on an annual basis --And this has to stop! 40 (attachment (22) Historical Settlement Amounts) L. REMINGTON FIRE CONTROL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND DISCOVERY ABUSE Somehow in Remington rifle litigation the clock stopped ticking after the Aleksich case was settled in 1995 and the entire matter was sealed from public inspection.41 Since that time nothing has really changed in Remington bolt action rifle litigation with the exception that vast majority of cases are settled since 1995. For example, the parties are still arguing the same exact claims and defenses, surrounding the same exact products as almost forty (40) years ago with no real defining moment to hold Remington responsible for the company’s negligent conduct. I have worked hard to expose the truth and hold Remington accountable, defend against unnecessary secrecy afforded by trial attorneys in spite of all Remington had done to conceal their self impeaching documents from the public by securing the Gus Barber Anti 40 On information and belief, trial attorneys access contingency fees ranging from 30% to 60% of the recovery, plus expenses on a sliding scale depending upon the phase the litigation is resolved –example: settlement v. jury trial. Today the vast majority of the cases are resolved through settlement, with all discovery bound by Protective Order. 41 I will discuss further insights later in this letter when I expose a continual pattern of abuse and misconduct against plaintiffs and the judicial system collectively.


24

Secrecy act to the benefit of the public. I have also made great strides through my research developments to do my part to ensure the past misdeeds of Remington has not gone un-noticed to advance the interest of past plaintiffs and the courts that have been defrauded by Remington to defeat justice. I also hold the belief my research had a defining effect to advance the Pollard Settlement in spite of the personal conflict challenges I have faced by my handlers to silence me. (attachment (23) Barber email –“Barber is the only one taking one for the team”) The last defining case to go to trial was in the mid 1990s styled Collins v. Remington. In this case Remington suffered a decisive loss after several –I believe twenty (20) in all –courts ordered Remington to produce evidence of a secrete New Bolt Action Rifle (NBAR) program, to among other things develop safer alternative fire control designs to replace the functionally deficient Walker fire control system. (attachment (24) Replacement for the Model 700 ) Before this time, (1975 to 1982) Remington had a program known as the Model 600 and 700 fire control ”improvement program,” later changed to NBAR to shield the new programs existence from discovery. Remington’s primary motive was clear for development of a new fire control –“to put the company in a more secure position with respect to product liability.” (attachment (25) “Incentive” reduce liability (attachment (28) 1981 -1982 Research Programs Document) At the completion of the Collins trial, the jury awarded plaintiff a 17 million dollar verdict against Remington –15 million of which was slated as punitive damages to punish Remington for its outrageous conduct. (attachment (26) Business Week –Remington Faces a Misfiring Squad) M. EXCLUSIVE INSIGHTS REMINGTON FIRE CONTROL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 1. INTRODUCTION While I understand the following information is possibly outside the wheel-house of this court to act upon this information, I want to create this record of my exclusive insights I have developed to demonstrate the extraordinary reach of Remington’s conduct to defraud the courts. This court will soon come to learn, the fraud on the courts literally spans decades in a multitude of litigation –possibly since the very conception of litigation involving the Walker fire control. Some of the information contained in the following paragraphs has never been seen by the public or in any court in its assembled form until now. This information is important to show the true extent of Remington’s secret fire control programs, to demonstrate design development from the conceptual phase to eventually be released to the public in a production rifle –And Remington’s attempt to conceal this information from the public, plaintiffs and the courts in spite of court orders commanding Remington to produce this information in decades old cases. 2. THE BARBER RESEARCH ARCHIVE My personal research archive has been generally prized by trial attorneys who have somehow

felt entitled to my research. Trial attorney have even attempted to secure my personal research archive, unsuccessfully, either by subpoena (jointly with Remington), or have demanded access


25

because they claim they feel “entitled to documents” Remington has withheld from them in discovery.42 Trial lawyers I have worked with have also tried to control my public safety advocacy to prevent the exchange of my personal work product to the public through my contacts within the news media, contending of all things, it makes settlement of their cases more difficult, derived from Remington’s “outright hatred” of me for exposing the company’s secrets to protect human life. My research archive can never be produced in its entirety, I was once told by an attorney I trusted, admired and respected, Richard C. Miller. His reason was simple, clear and concise –If my research archive were to ever be produced to Remington in its entirety, this would destroy discovery as we know it in future Remington bolt action rifle litigation. This is because no one knows exactly what I have unearthed in my search for the truth. My resources and documents sweeps have been so vast to even include information gained from interviews of retired employees of Remington itself. This has to be unnerving to Remington counsel, to gamble with me, at the risk of serious sanction, if I should possess clues and insight, to permit me to probe further through discovery and they fail to produce documents I have already secured through my own resources. 3. EXCLUSIVE BARBER DISCOVERIES On occasion I have in fact reviewed documents never seen before outside Remington. The document attached as (31) is a very significant piece of new evidence I have singled out for the courts review. This is just one example of new discovery I had discovered in 2012, never seen before in Remington bolt action rifle litigation before this time, to the best of my knowledge. This single page document produced in the Kinzer litigation, attachment (31) identified only as “presale documents” is important to establish several factors previously concealed from plaintiffs in a host of cases predating disclosure of this document in 2011. For instance: (a) observe the date: November 30, 1978. This document establishes the true extent of Remington’s audit testing on rifles to include the Model 700 rifle. (b) This document shows raw data involving diagnostic testing performing the “screwdriver test” to establish sear lift defects, and/or, a combination of sear lift and excessive slip fit of the trigger connector on the trigger body that could exceed sear lift with the safety in the on safe position to produce interferences between the two (2) parts that would result in the Model 700 rifle firing when the safety is released. Remington identified this “interference” condition in 1973 and added final inpection testing to detect such deficiencies to prevent Model 700 rifles from reaching the public with this dangerous condition. (Attachment (27) C. Prosser Model 700 interferences) Even though screwdriver testing was part of the final inspection process on the Model 700, it appears the testing was not being done, or at least, internal testing failures were not being documented because the failures as described in the following single page document attachment (31) would be discoverable in litigation. (attachment (28) William A. Warren Notes 1979) In the author’s opinion, the “screwdriver test” is a much more reliable test to determine

42 Under Montana law, I am afforded protection from being compelled to produce my work product by the news gathers privilege because of my ongoing work with the news media.


26

and identify fire control deficiencies in Remington rifles than the “trick test” to conduct a true statistical analysis to determine an estimate of the total population of rifles in the field suffering from a combination of deficiencies that would result in fire on safety release (FSR) malfunctions in the Walker fire control system. (d) As listed in this document, screwdriver testing was conducted on a population of thirty (30) Model 700 rifles tested on this single page. The individual performing the testing observed twenty three (23) failures. According to my accounting this evidence lends itself to show a statistical 73% failure rate on this limited population of rifles tested, even though Remington audited hundreds of Model 700s returned from the field with customer complaints alleging the rifles fired on safety release. (attachment (29) November 29, 1978 Review of M/700 rifles returned to arms service)43 For all we know, this single page of audit results could have been conducted on new rifles inside the plant. Thanks to Remington’s untimely production no one will now ever know for sure --but one thing I am certain, as a result of Remington’s belatedly produced production of this document has destroyed any chance to conduct depositions or further discovery requests too learn more about this testing produced thirty four (34) years after the document in question was developed by Remington testing personnel. (attachment (30) Safety Audits on the M/700 –Number of Verified Complaints) The biggest single question not answered to date: where are the rest of the raw data notes or final reports generated as a result of this audit testing on the Model 700 rifles? To date, only glimpses of other pieces of evidence have surfaced showing similar audits conducted on both the Model 700 and 600 rifles. I suspect Remington has again concealed this detailed information. If the truth were known, (and it should be) the results of Model 700 audits would most likely reveal similar failure results more closing paralleling the testing failures as reported in the Model 600 fire controls final audit testing showing failures as high as 55.9% when the same testing protocols were used.44 I fully believe they do in fact exist, Your Honor, however, Remington, through its counsel, has shielded this evidence from discovery production because no court has yet seen fit to punish Remington severely enough or nearly to the degree necessary to finally compel Remington to produce this information already ordered to have been produced in discovery in at least three decades of litigation. (attachment (31) Raw data showing M/700 73% failure rate on sample of 30 rifles tested) 4. THE REMINGTON ‘TWO TRIGGER’ FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM Richard Miller often referred to me as a “wild card” as a litigation consultant. This has proven to be effective in light of the fact, within the past five (5) years, new evidence has been produced by Remington I have never seen before. The court needs to understand one thing when I say information “I have never seen before” –in reality this means –If I have not ever seen certain new evidence produced in discovery, most likely no one has ever seen it before .

43 It is interesting to note Remington identified other defects in the population of fire controls that failed Remington’s testing protocols. These rifles appear to have been disqualified from the statistical analysis of rifles that would FSR per the company’s testing to determine the failures exclusively to the “Trick Condition.” 44 Previous Barber Letter attachments (c) and (d)


27

Here is just one more example of the research I have conducted while not being employed as a litigation consultant. This paper trail will show how diligent I have worked in my page by page search to leave no stone unturned to unearth Remington’s secrets. The following insight is exclusive to me and my research to detail the existence of a new fire control development spanning the years 1978 through 2013 –to include two different fire control development programs tasked with the same objective to improve the functional deficiencies of the Walker fire control. This new fire control would eventually be fully developed past the conceptual phase and used in a production rifle known as the Remington Model 783 in 2013,45 AND YET, this “two trigger” fire control has never been produced in any discovery –EVER – where Remington was ordered by a host of courts to do so. The information I collected on this “two trigger” fire control came to me in fragments –piece by piece –spanning discovery in three (3) separate cases, over the time span of ten (10) years, ranging between the years 2002 to 2012. The first document I recovered was found in 2002, originating from Aleksich v. Remington. The document was generated as a result of a program to “improve” the Model 600 and 700 fire control system.46 The two (2) most prominent talking points in this November 1, 1978, Research Meeting document are talking about how to improve the present fire control used in the Model 600 and 700 rifles to ensure: 2. “The trigger must be pulled to fire the rifle –pulling the trigger is the only way the rifle will fire –rifle will fire immediately when the trigger is pulled.” The most curious observation I learned from this single document, was the fact I had never seen any other information discussing a two (2) trigger fire control concept in any other fire control development documents before this time –not to say none existed as I would have to admit at the time (2002) my research was in its infancy. When I say two (2) trigger fire control concept the document states: “As an example of No. 2 above that was discussed was to have a second trigger that had to be pulled before the primary trigger could be pulled. The secondary trigger would block the sear or other mechanism until pulled with a predetermined force through a specific distance and continued movement would pull the primary trigger to fire the rifle.” (attachment (34) Subject: Bolt Action Fire Control –Research Meeting November 1, 1978) The next piece of the puzzle involving the existence of a two (2) trigger fire control concept development would not surface in discovery until the years 2005 and 2006, in the Williams v. Remington litigation. The paper trail had been completely cold until I identified a December 7, 2004 email between Mike Keeney to John Fink, forwarded to John Trull that would offer further 45 The Model 783 Remington rifle would come to be marketed publicly in 2013. Note the trigger bow construction in the advertisement –two triggers. (attachment (32) The Model 783 rifle) I first observed this two trigger fire control marketed in a Marlin rifle –Marlin being owned by the same holding company of Remington. (attachment (33) Picture of Marlin rifle with two trigger fire control) The Marlin and Remington rifles appear to be the same other than manufacturer and model designations. 46 The Model 600 and 700 “fire control improvement program” ran from 1975 to early 1982.


28

insight into the November 1978 document objective. Your Honor, if it pleases the court, here is a sample of what is contained in this email: “Why is Savage eating our shorts, they took a chance on a design that Jay Bunting laughed at. We had presented a two stage trigger to Jay during the fire control development days 6 years ago. The operation was exactly like the savage system, split triggers. Jay through it in our face and laughed us out of the building……guarantee he does not remember that! Trull made the comment the other day that we would copy the savage system in a heart beat if we could. John, we had that 6 years before Savage, think of the competitive advantage the 6 years would have given us? If we are afraid to be the “first in the field” we cannot compete. I am not grand standing for effect John, I am fighting with everything I have for Remington to succeed. We may not be able to correct history, but at leased we ought to learn from past mistakes and prosper from those experiences… unfortunately we continue to make the same mistakes time after time and find somewhere else to finger, the finger needs to be pointed at every one of us, we are the problem and if we don’t realize it we are destined to failure.” (attachment (35) Keeney email to John Fink dated December 7, 2004) (attachment (36) picture of savage fire control system) Several important insights can be learned from Mr. Keeney’s 2004 email. For instance, the email indicates Remington design engineers had the developed working concept of a two trigger fire control system during “the fire control development days six years ago.” The email suggests the working model appears to have been “thrown in the authors face,” indicating Remington had the design, conceptually, by at least 1998 if not before. The email also ties substantial chronological insight, finally making sense of the November, 1978, Research Meeting document, discussing future developments to bolt action fire controls to include a two trigger –“split trigger” –concept development as an improvement to mitigate the existing deficiencies in Walker fire control system. While this insight involves some speculation on my part, however, I strongly suspect the reason and cause of Mr. Keeney’s frustration, above his pay grade, obviously, Remington’s attorney’s could not risk implementation of the new two trigger (split trigger) fire control in the Model 700 rifle because this would prove, Remington, through its previous counsel, in fact, committed discovery abuse in Chapa v. Remington. This would include a host of other cases where Remington was physically ordered by a slew of courts to produce alternative design fire control developments during the Model 600 and 700 fire control improvement program (1975 thru 1982) and especially Remington’s New Bolt Action Rifle (NBAR) program (1982 forward) to plaintiffs in discovery. Supreme Court Justice, for the State of Texas, Lloyd Doggett, delivered one such opinion on December 31, 1992: “[t]he documents themselves demonstrate relevance and need. Many of them will provide evidence of great significance, perhaps the only evidence, as to Remington’s knowledge of defects and its ability to implement safer alternative designs” **Note** begin Page 7, second paragraph, through page 10 beginning at second paragraph.


29

“This court has vigorously sought to ensure lawsuits are decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed. Discovery is thus the linchpin in the search for the truth” **Note** Page 15 “Today’s decision [ordering Remington to produce alternative fire control developments] ensures that this litigation will not be one of ‘gamesmanship and secrecy, id., but instead will promote a fair resolution through the revelation of facts.” **Note** Page 1547 (attachment (37)Texas Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Dogget Ruling –Discovery of NBAR 1992) I would later see more evidence surrounding the elusive two trigger fire control concept in 2011-2012 while conducting discovery document analysis in Kinzer v. Remington. (The “Pre Sale” Documents) The stars were aligned (but I believe God had a guiding hand in this intervention) as these discovery documents would appear at the same time I was actively working to unseal the record in the Aleksich v. Remington litigation, here in Montana, to learn why the Aleksich litigation was settled after five years of highly contested battles on the second day of a hearing before the court. It was my objective to learn what Remington hoped to conceal from the public when the case was settled; and what exactly was to be gained by Remington when the entire matter was sealed from public inspection on March 28, 1995. Of one thing I have come to learn about this company, they give nothing unless they receive ten-fold in return. In this case –Aleksich –Judge Hatfield was going to literally throw the book at Remington for flagrant and willful discovery abuse not only in the Aleksich case but in every case proceeding 1995 where these types of documents requested but were never produced. This was the result of supplemental documents that allegedly “surfaced as a result of the income producing assets of Remington being sold to an investment group and people retiring” three years AFTER discovery was closed by Judge Hatfield in Aleksich.48 In 2012 I would also learn of a meeting behind closed doors at Remington that occurred the same day Aleksich was settled –March 28, 1995. This document would reveal compelling evidence to establish Remington’s physical knowledge that shows the Walker fire control actual propensity to fire on safety release, (FSR) something Remington steadfastly denied throughout the Aleksich litigation, but admits internally –the real possibility of FSR malfunctions in the Walker fire control and new fire control development to prevent such malfunctions from reoccurring. (attachment (38) Protect against FSR –Power Point Presentation March 28, 1995) Remington still steadfastly denies today in Pollard, undeterred by anyone, and in fraudulent statements to the public, FSR malfunctions in the Walker fire control are nothing more than plaintiff lawyers assertions and false innuendo by experts like me, and the company’s attorneys continue to steadfastly deny any wrong doing in any past litigation or to cover up the

47 Justice Doggett was another such Judge that inspired me to seek the truth for myself. It would appear, Remington has yet again been caught red handed to play the games on the courts warned of in the1992 Dogget opinion. The evidence I have brought forth, thus far, shows Remington willfully concealed alternative fire control evidence to have the ultimate impact to defile the courts but further undermine the entire system of justice. But there is more… 48 I will offer more on the Aleksich case in the section of my letter outlining further instances of discovery abuse and fraud on the courts.


30

company’s knowledge of deficiencies in the Walker fire control. In spite of what the evidence reveals in Remington’s own internal documents to the contrary, Remington still maintains to the public and the Pollard class the Walker fire control, including the Model 700 is a safe and reliable rifle. This only suggests to the public and the class retrofit is not necessary or warranted. The evidence alone, up to this point in my letter, should clearly demonstrate why it would have been paramount to Remington to seal my research files and silence me forever as part of any agreement to settle Pollard and to prevent me from showing anyone my irrefutable findings to demonstrate that Remington’s claims are in fact simply untrue. This would prevent me from taking matters into my own hands to create this public record to your court or to eventually become an objector to the voucher proposal for the Model 600 sub class. This is the only logical explanation to seal my work from public inspection –as a contingency –in the foreseeable event I could not be managed or controlled by my handlers. 5. THE NEW DOCUMENTS –THE TWO TRIGGER FIRE CONTROL DESIGN While the following documents are cryptic and vague in nature, the evidence clearly coincides with Justice Doggett’s order for production of NBAR documents in Chapa would have had further standing in Collins, Hartman Nigro; Aleksich to name a few cases Remington was ordered to produce this discovery. However, the dates in these belatedly produced documents clearly indicates a physical acknowledgement of the development of two trigger concept in the hand written notes of William A. Warren, a Remington engineer tasked with review of previous efforts to develop alternative safer fire control designs to be produced for the Model 700 rifle, (“to put the company in a more secure position with respect to product liability”)49 or other rifles as Remington suggests, for the purpose of new products under the guise of the N.B.A. R. program. Here are but a few examples, Your Honor: “Non objection to Glock – type trigger lever – Soucy likes.” –“trigger – trigger (Glock)50 (attachment (41) Warren notes – no date) Other documents I will now provide to this court –the first time seen in any court or by the public—offer irrefutable insight into Remington’s motive to develop a safer alternative fire control systems to replace the functionally deficient Walker fire control system: March 22, 1989: “NBAR Meeting with Legal Dept, JC Hutton

49 attachment (39) 50 Kenneth Soucy was the head of Remington Research and Development at the time. (attachment (40) Soucy email to attorneys. The “Glock type trigger” is another two trigger –split trigger—design that has wide customer acceptance by the gun community. (attachment (42) picture of Glock trigger)


31

Topic: Define legal’s position as far as a fire control M/700 Re-Design for New Bolt Action Rifle & being able to defend existing M/700 fire control as well as newly designed fire control for New BAR JC Hutton stated the following criteria be followed for design & introduction for new fire control: 1. Must not be retrofittable with existing M/700 or M/7 rifles 2. Must eliminate Connector Bar of current M/700 design. **Note**examples include, the Model 783 and XMP fire controls51 3. New rifle must have a different new model designation.” [Underline denotes emphases in original document] (attachment (43) Warren Notes –NBAR Meeting with Legal Department March 22, 1989) October 15, 1993: Briefing Release Mechan. “Avoid Disparaging Discoverable info.” Define Problem –Ask: What current imperfections are we trying to overcome? –“FSR” Reconcile objectives among Points of View Agreement. (attachment (44) William A. Warren presentation notes – October 15, 1993) **NOTE** If a final draft of Mr. Warren’s presentation notes was developed, they have not been produced in any litigation that I know of to date along with other notes or meeting minutes typically taken when such meetings are conducted at Remington. October 15, 1993 - Point of View Agreement Liability –Medium [Consideration] “Readily defensible reason or departure from current design” ?. Interlock: Will not fire if trigger is pulled and held as safety [is moved from safe to fire]52

51 In 1978 Remington concluded the “best solution appears to be adding a trigger block to prevent the trick condition” or a known fail to reset possibility of the trigger in the Walker fire control. Both causes would result in FSR malfunctions in the Walker fire control. (supplemental attachment (57) Fire Control Meeting) 52 While not inclusive of this letter, there is evidence of yet another fire control Remington has developed and tested, to mitigate the potential for another “dangerous condition” to exist in the Walker fire control. This is the result of an ergonomic defect identified by Remington engineers, whereby, it is acknowledged “the trigger and safety operate in parallel planes permitting a very dangerous condition to exist.” The engineer goes on to describe a disconnector should be provided to prevent the Walker fire control from discharging, in the foreseeable event the trigger should be inadvertently pulled at the same time the safety is released. Remington did in fact develop and test such a disconnector fire control, but to date, Remington has not produced this concept in discovery or has


32

(attachment (45) Point of View Agreement)**NOTE**In original document this is depicted with letters and an arrow drawn between “S” to “F” At the time this evidence manifest, my focus was exclusively on all the details involving this era of litigation from 1990 forward – collectively –fresh in my mind from analysis of a host of information resources and through my eventual success to unseal the record in the Aleksich litigation, whereby, Judge Cebull fully acknowledged in his order: –“The mechanism known as the Walker fire control is defective and can permit the rifle to fire without the trigger being pulled” (attachment (46) Cebull order unsealing Aleksich) What I would learn came to me with all the subtlety of being hit by a ton of bricks, like being in the dark and the lights suddenly being turned on when these missing pieces of the puzzle fell into place. The documents above were not buried in a Remington archive at all –somehow lost –during discovery in the Collins, Nigro, Hartman, or even the Aleksich v. Remington litigations, but were actually in Remington design engineering groups working files at the time Remington was ordered to produce alternative design development documents to include designer models by a host of courts and not just the cases cited above. The documents would have been readily accessible to anyone tasked with identification and production of discovery requests in the mass of litigation that ensued during the 1990s but these missing pieces of the puzzle would remain lost until 2011. I believe these documents were inadvertently produced when Remington apparently lost track of what past attorneys had physically produced in earlier cases. Remington had no real reason to be overly concerned after the death of Richard C. Miller in 2005, thinking no one would be the wiser to connect the dots involving the previous discovery abuse on the courts. What Remington could not know with any degree of certainty at the time, I exceeded everyone else’s knowledge of what has physically been produced in Remington bolt action rifle litigation long before 2012. The insights I would learn would even shock me, by this time in 2012, thinking I had seen the full extent of just how far this company might go to conceal information from plaintiffs in direct violation of court orders commanding Remington to produce alternative fire control design discovery. This revelation came in Williams v. Remington six years after the 2006 trial resulted in a defense verdict.53 In Williams, the court ordered Remington to produce documents, working models and concepts to plaintiffs --And I would eventually learn Remington failed to produce this two trigger fire concept in this litigation years later. When I contacted Williams counsel to inform him what I had discovered and documented after conducting interviews of the testifying experts who examined the fire control concepts produced by Remington in

implemented the design to protect against the foreseeable ergonomic defect described in Mr. Warren’s notes above. 53 I am aware a “high – low offer” existed in Williams, capping damages in the event the trial resulted in plaintiff verdict or ”low offer” if defense prevailed in the Williams litigation, an arrangement either way, plaintiff counsel was assured to get paid and would not have reason to appeal or act on the information described above. Williams was the first case I worked as a litigation consultant, hired to conduct document analysis of discovery and assist Richard C. Miller develop discovery requests before his death in 2005. This would be the first case discovery had been requested since 1995 when Aleksich was settled.


33

Williams to further my developing belief Remington committed discovery abuse in Williams, counsel told me he did not want to hear about this discovery. This exchange, instructing me to back off and let it go shocked me even more than the compelling evidence of discovery abuse in the Williams case. Here again, I am forced to wonder if this insight has created another “back door arrangement” (described in my previous letter) between the attorney’s, where my work has been used to compel Remington to settle the lion’s share of cases with any firm to ensure my work product does not see the light of day or is used to reopen old cases, as in See v. Remington, surrounding this newly discovered evidence of fraud on the courts? You have to admit, at first glance, this theory “to bury the truth” as outlined in my previous letter, appears strikingly similar to the measures to silence me through the Joint Motion for Protective Order in Pollard. I believe if my research were somehow monopolized, it would be a powerful leverage tool to secure future settlements against Remington. N. THE HISTORY AND SETTLEMENT OF THE ALEKSICH LITIGATION –WHY THE ENTIRE CASE WAS SEALED FROM PUBLIC INSPECTION Hour Honor, I have decided to let Richard Miller speak from the grave to permit you to understand the historical events that took place in the Aleksich litigation.54 I only have a couple important insights to offer. This was the most significant Remington bolt action rifle case that did not go to trial, but it should have. Based on my interviews, I have been told Judge Hatfield told Remington to “get out of his court and settle this case” or warned Remington of the grave consequences he intended to impose on Defendants for cheating every court predating the supplemental document production in Aleksich v. Remington. These belatedly produced document surfaced three years after Judge Hatfield closed discovery in Aleksich –And the documents themselves were the most damning, self impeaching documents to ever see the light of day in Remington bolt action rifle litigation by 1995. Your Honor, when and if you decide to read Richard Miller’s briefs supporting sanctions against Remington, please note, Remington counsel initially identified eight (8) to twelve (12) boxes would be produced as a result of the sale and people retiring but eventually only produced four (4) –one half to one third of what was initially disclosed. This is important! (attachment (47) Pictures of the Supplemental Discovery) Here are Richard Miller Briefs: A. Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions –attachment (48) B. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions: Exhibit C –The New Documents –attachment (49)

54 Richard Miller passed away in 2005 but not before asking me to accomplish some research for him. I promised him I would, and in part, what you are witnessing is the research I completed for Rich Miller.


34

C. The Supplemental Exhibit List --attachment (50) Richard Miller would later be contacted by another attorney representing an injured party from Pennsylvania named Jerome Kiger. Mr. Kiger litigated the Nigro v. Remington case which resulted in a defense verdict. He would come to learn of the Collins v. Remington case in Texas featured in the Business Week article, Remington Faces a Misfiring Squad, believing Remington did not act in good faith to produce documents related to alternative fire control design development, among other things, requested and ordered produced in Nigro. Richard Miller would come to tell Kiger about the recent production in Aleksich to help advance an appeal in Nigro. Richard Miller would send, Kiger, redacted versions of the briefs above, the Supplemental Exhibit List, to include the documents subject the exhibit list. This would be my first time reviewing this information, after requesting copies from the Clerk of the Nigro court. Once Remington learned what Richard Miller did to assist Nigro, Remington filed a contempt complaint against Miller in the Aleksich court, attempting to dis-bar Richard Miller for violating the Protective Order subject to the Aleksich Settlement. The following are briefs to hold Richard Miller in contempt. Again, I will let Rich Miller tell you his story in his own words:55 D. Docket Entry 393 Response of Richard Miller to Defendants Application for Order to Show Cause for Finding of Contempt. –attachment (51) E. Docket Entry 404 Richard Miller’s last brief responding for Defendant’s Application for Order to Show Cause and Finding of Contempt. –attachment (52) Richard Miller’s last brief (Docket Entry 404) is where my theory originated that Remington had committed a fraud on every court predating Aleksich. I would then, to prove or disprove my theory, spend the next year developing the See v. Remington case, the oldest case of record I knew of at the time. My finding was conclusive; Remington in fact (I allege) committed discovery abuse and fraud on the court in the See case. I then began to develop the evidence to support my finding. It would appear the judge agreed with my assessment and ordered new discovery in See to develop a new record in the case. –See hearing transcript attached to this letter as attachment (16) Footnote 28 In the interest of trying to be brief, to make my point, here is a letter from Richard Miller requesting Remington to develop a list of documents that might be with-held from the Aleksich Supplemental Production by Remington counsel before production of the new documents. (attachment (53) Cutting right to the point, I am the only living human who has seen and reviewed the entire collection of Aleksich Supplemental Documents in their entirety. As a matter of fact, Richard

55 Neither the Aleksich or the appellate courts conclude Richard Miller violated the confidentially agreement in Aleksich. Remington brought this action against Richard Miller to chill his efforts to reopen Millers past cases he was certain Remington defrauded those courts. It had the desired effect Remington wanted.


35

Miller, before his death provided me for my review, the only original copies produced that existed in the public domain –outside Remington. Your Honor, to the best of my knowledge, I would swear under oath, to the best of my knowledge, the following document attached as (54) was not contained in the “New Documents” produced to Richard Miller in Aleksich. I would ask the court to pay close attention to the fax signature at the top of this telling memo, proving Remington counsel had this specific piece of evidence between the dates the new documents were disclosed to Rich Miller and the date Remington actually produced the Aleksich Supplemental Documents. This was in direct violation of the letter above, attachment (53), requesting a list of documents Remington counsel intended to withhold from the supplemental Aleksich production in accordance of the rules. (attachment (54) 1990 letter stamped with February 22, 1995 fax signature) If this does not seem bad enough, at the time I conducted document analysis on the Kinzer “Pre Sale Documents” in 2012, I would learn there were not eight (8) to twelve (12) boxes of documents, even though Remington only produced four (4) but closer to sixteen, (16) better than twice the quantity produced in Aleksich! Remington again defeated justice I would learn seventeen (17) years after the fact. Richard Miller would never learn the source of the Supplemental Aleksich Discovery, but I would keep digging, after Rich passed away. O. THE HASKIN DOCUMENTS –THE SOURCE OF THE ALEKSICH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY After the verdict in Collins and the Remington limited asset sale, new management and new in-house counsel moved into their roles with the new organization. There was a Joint Defense Agreement made between New Remington (the buyers) and Old Remington (DuPont –the sellers) whereby it was agreed, New Remington would handle the litigation on behalf of Old Remington. Remington’s new counsel, Robert Haskin, would be dispatched to Texas to settle the Collins case (and several others pending) after the Collins trial resulted in a plaintiff verdict to the tune of 17 million dollars, 15 million in punitive damages. In anticipation of the arrival of Remington’s new in-house counsel, Richard Miller drafted a letter to his co-counsel, based on Miller’s review of the sale documents, to make a proposal to assist with litigation on behalf of New Remington alleging “fraudulent concealment” or “fraudulent misrepresentation” involving inherent liabilities contained within the income producing assets Miller felt were not disclosed to the buyers. The letter is dated May 17, 1994. The letter suggests Remington’s new in-house counsel consider Millers proposal. The letter from Richard Miller outlining this brief summary is attached here with this proposal on the top of page 2. (attachment (55) And look into it Robert Haskin did –one month later to the day, June 17, 1994, Mr. Haskin generated a “Suspension Order” requesting documents that had been requested in discovery by, Richard Miller, now be be produced to Remington’s new counsel. (attachment (56) The Haskin Suspension Order) As history will show, a number of the documents Haskin requested be produced to him as Remington in-house counsel, would show up in Montana in the Aleksich case roughly nine (9) months later, but as I have shown not all of them. But just enough to apparently leverage Old


36

Remington back to the bargaining table to renegotiate “the purchase price for the acquisition of the company and other acquisition issues, as well as issues relating to the company’s outstanding liability litigation…” (attachment (57) exhibit to a brief Richard Miller wrote regarding Alter Ego Theory of Liability against DuPont) Robert Haskin would make a similar disclosure in another class action pending at the time, styled Garza v. Remington.56 This time Haskin would ensure all the documents would personally be produced, unlike Aleksich, to Garza class counsel. In my interview with this subject, Jon Robinson, he reported to me the existence of possibly “hundreds of thousands pages of documents” Haskin permitted him to review at his old firm of Snell & Wilmer before coming on board as Remington new in-house counsel. To date, Remington has not ever produced this quantity of documents subject to the Haskin Suspension Order in bolt action rifle litigation. In the See v. Remington case, Remington counsel acknowledged a log of the documents was developed when the Haskin documents were amassed, but to date it has never been produced to my knowledge. Every time I get close, the cases are settled to prevent disclosure of what I suspect is a treasure trove of the most telling documents compiled by Remington, but to never be produced or see the light of day. I will briefly add, Jon Robinson, lead litigation counsel in the Garza class action litigation found what he described as the “Smoking Gun” document to force Remington to settle Garza. Robert Haskin’s employment would be terminated by Remington in 1996 and I would continue to search for answers for Richard Miller until Robert Haskin was finally deposed on March 4, 2010, when I would learn about the document log and the vast document sweep he conducted subject to his Suspension Order of June 17, 1994 to learn the source of who compiled the new documents in the Aleksich case. (Resource: Haskin Deposition –Bledsoe v. Remington) Richard Miller unfortunately did not live long enough to see for himself what has taken me years to develop this evidence and insight to answer his questions about how and from whom the Aleksich Supplement Discovery Production. As I would learn, he himself, Richard Miller, was in fact the driving force the Aleksich Supplemental Documents materialize when he had his co-counsel in Collins suggest to Remington’s new in-house counsel to consider litigation against Old Remington for defrauding the buyers, by not disclosing the inherited liabilities in the income producing assets purchased by New Remington at the end of 1993. CONCLUSION AND CLOSING REMARKS How can one company be permitted to cause so many people so much pain and suffering for so long? This is one of many of the primary question I have asked myself to arrive here. It is now apparent I will not permit my loyalty to advance this cause or sacrifice my moral compassion to protect others to be purchased at any price, in light of the fact human life is so precious. As I have now demonstrated, Remington has not only taken extraordinary measures

56 Richard Miller and his co-counsel, Robert Chaffin, also had a class action pending on the bolt action rifle product lines at the same time as Garza.


37

to conceal these hidden dangers but has boastfully lied to the public and the courts to fulfill their design to avoid responsibility and consequences for their actions. Throughout this letter when I refer to “Remington,” it must be understood the name is nothing more than a corporate identity guided by the moral conscience and ethical conduct of man, to seek profit and recognition for themselves while hiding behind the corporate identity of “Remington.” As the court digests this letter, please consider these last two insights I offer to show just how calloused, irresponsible and acting with wanton disregard for the safety of the public the people behind the corporate identity of “Remington” have been. This 1985 memo talking about improving the safety of bolt action fire controls sums it up most adequately in my humble opinion: “In reviewing the attached strategy summary on Firearms, one product feature we stress internally, but to my knowledge we do not stress very extensively in the marketplace is safety… The world is surely increasingly safety conscience –I don’t know whether macho hunters are concerned, but they should be. R &D is working on improved safety and security features which should have marketable value. (If they don’t we ought to stop the work.)” (attachment (59) December 30, 1995 Darby Memo) You will observe in practice what happens in the real world when safety concerns are raised involving the safety and security of Remington’s products in the marketplace: Customer Bud Caretti –December 4, 2005 “My 15 year old daughter has a 3 year old Model 700 243 cal. This hunting season when she clicked the safety off the gun fired. This happened several times, once injuring her nose… I was wondering if the trigger[the Walker fire control] should be replaced and if you have had this sort of problem before with this model rifle?” (attachment (60) Caretti Complaint) Mr. Carletti had raised reasonable and obvious concern about his daughter’s well being and safety, as any responsible parent might be expected under the circumstances, only to be told by “Remington:”“Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We are not aware of the issue that you experienced in the Model 700…” How could this continue to happen in 2005 if you consider all Remington knew by this time, involving the functional deficiencies in the Walker fire control? After the court reads and digests what I have outlined here, I would hope the court and the public would be outraged at the conduct I have shown to exist here and act. This has been a very difficult letter for me to write, but in the interest of putting this issue to rest, along with Gus, so all might in some way come to understand what I have learned in the hardest way possible throughout my sixteen (16) year crusade to learn the truth for myself. As you see, Gus, has not yet been laid to rest, his remains on the book shelf behind me, looking over my shoulder –as a nine year old might –as I write this letter to this court.


38

Of course there is always more compelling information, documentation and insight to add, but it was never my intent to write a book of what I have learned, but only to offer a sample to educate the public and inform this court so justice might be eventually served. At this juncture in my letter, Your Honor, I am humbly requesting that this court consider disciplinary action that can be imposed on “Remington,” possibly its officers and most certainly its counsel to deter future conduct from degrading the integrity of our judicial system, your court; and in future courts –conduct surely to only further degrade the public’s confidence and trust in the justice system. But further and most importantly, to also to break the cycle of injury and death and injustice that has been permitted to plague the public possibly longer than I have been alive. Remington’s reign of deceit and terror has already resulted in so many lives lost and families destroyed. This must end here and now, in your court, Your Honor. I now look to you to do what is in your best judgment and within your power and control to see justice done guided by my objections and insights I have offered through-out my letters to give you the information you need to stop the injustice and further death and destruction. Here are some final requests and suggestions I offer to this court: A. I would like to ask this court to consider disqualifying the current Class Representatives (Class Rep.) for the Model 600 sub class, instating me or some other qualified person to represent this population of Remington rifle owners with new and independent counsel other than any member of class counsel currently representing this population of the class. Obviously the current Class Rep. has no knowledge or desire to restrain or guide their counsel to ensure the best interest of the class receive an antiquate, fair; and reasonable resolution for other Model 600 rifle owners. B. If I am considered for instatement to be the new Class Rep., I request this court order Remington to produce to me the Document Log and permit me and new counsel inspection of the documents subject to the Haskin Suspension Order. This will permit me to better represent the best interests of the Model 600 sub class to ensure the full extent of the facts are finally known and, if necessary, force Remington to live up to its prior obligation to repair these rifles at no expense to the class. C. I am requesting this court sanction Remington and its counsel for the fraudulent statements and conduct offered at the February 4, 2015 hearing to convince this court to support the proposed settlement which I believe I have clearly and convincingly demonstrated to be false. D. I request that, as a sanction, in addition to whatever the court may decide to impose, Remington be ordered to produce to me the Document Log and permit me and any new counsel inspection of the documents subject to the Haskin Suspension Order. I believe that in light of the seriousness of alleged facts contained in this letter it is high time the public and I know the truth to finally accomplish what I started to a final and logical conclusion.
