a fact that Plaintiff/Appellant's attorney, Bob Bradshaw, specifically

points out at page 70, lines 13 and 20, that Moose was not part of

Count I and should not be entitled to receive sanctions.  Judge Jarvis

states at line 23, " They say they weren't involved in that Count",

however,  Judge Jarvis awarded sanctions to Moose anyway.

ISN'T THIS RECEIVING MONIES UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND MAIL FRAUD?

II.    Do you think the District Court applied the wrong law?

      Judge Jarvis incorrectly applied  Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493

U.S. 20,22,110 S.Ct. 304, 307, 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989), as the standard by

which  he bases his  opinion, and his justification for sanctions and

dismissal of Plaintiff's case.  Plaintiff/Appellant submits that Hallstrom

specifically indicates it does not apply  under 42 U.S.C.

6972(b)(1)(A)(iii) when "subchapter III violations" (i.e. RCRA Subpart

C violations)  are occurring.  In Dague v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d

1343 (2d Cir. 1991), and in Martin v. Kansas Board of Regents, 32 Env't

Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1944 (D. Kan. Feb. 19, 1991), the courts held that no 60-

day notice was necessary when "RCRA Subpart C violations" have occurred.

    At pages 12 and 13 of Judge Jarvis's Memorandum Opinion at Docket

#56,  Judge Jarvis shows that he is not only capable of outright lying in

his opinion, but is also capable of ignoring the most important part of

Guy Moose's affidavit found at Court Docket #25, in regard to Plaintiff's

rights.  Judge Jarvis quotes paragraphs 2 , 3, and 15 of Moose's affidavit

to support his outrageous statement that:

	  "...Moose concludes that all of Mr. Oliver's
          allegations were "groundless"..."(emphasis added)

                                   9