XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
Website Navigation
The Issues
and
Proposed Solutions
( Website Homepage )
The Issues
Proposed Solutions
Understand the ELS Federal Tax Fraud Scheme
Legal Opinions and
Documents related to the
ELS Tax Fraud Scheme
Chronological List of
Website Documents
Washington State
Precedential
Railroad Right-of-Way
Opinions Thru Brown


ELST: The Trail of Shame
Corruption in King County, Washington,
Covered-up in the Federal and State Courts of Washington.

by John Rasmussen

Please read a disclaimer for the statements I make on this website accusing judges, politicians, and activists of criminal actions.



Introduction:

My statements describing corruption, dishonesty, wrongdoing or criminal actions in this Introduction
are a First Amendment expression of MY OPINION
.

         This website explains the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) Federal Tax Fraud Scheme, a crime committed in the late 1990s by the leadership of King County, Washington, and covered-up by Ninth Circuit and Washington State judges, including the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court. The ELS federal tax fraud scheme involved Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) donating land under its East Lake Sammamish right-of-way to King County as a part of a 1998 railbanking transaction. Essentially all of this land was easements and therefore not owned by BNSF. King County accepted the "donation" of the right-of-way land with the knowledge that it was fraudulent. Based on King County's acceptance of the "donation", and an inflated valuation of the right-of-way by the disgraced accounting firm Arthur Andersen, BNSF took a $40 million illegal federal tax write-off. But that's just a portion of the crime.

         In order to hide its participation in the tax fraud scheme, King County then falsely claimed ownership of this ELS right-of-way land. This involved the County turning its resources against its own ELS landowners, with lies in the press and fraudulent quiet title claims in our courts. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng was particularly dishonest in this process. The present King County Prosecutor, Dan Satterberg, was Chief of Staff to Maleng at the time the King County Prosecutor's Office committed this crime. To justify his illegal acceptance of the land donation, Maleng and his staff claimed that all the original 1887 railroad right-of-way deeds along East Lake Sammamish granted fee simple title to the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E). Since BNSF was successor in interest to the SLS&E, this dishonest deed analysis justified BNSF's and King County's claim of ownership. But Maleng had a problem with this claim. These deeds conveyed a "right of way" in their granting clause and for more than one hundred years this language had always been construed to grant an easement in Washington State/Territory. Maleng's solution was to claim that there had recently been a "sea change" in Washington State property law and that a new "bright line rule" had been established by our Supreme Court which would now find all the ELS right-of-way deeds to grant fee simple title of the underlying land. I've named this dishonest legal argument Norm Maleng's "legal theory". The land King County falsely claimed was valued at significantly more than $10 million. The subsequent illegal award of ELS right-of-way land to King County, and the resulting cover-up of the tax fraud scheme by our federal and Washington State judges, exposes the corrupt state of our judicial system.

         Now, twenty years later, the issues are far from being settled. Those who committed the crime have not been held accountable, and likely never will. There are legal opinions which hide the federal tax fraud scheme, and legal opinions which expose the fraud. These conflicting opinions have resulted in a minority of ELS landowners being compensated for the taking of their land, but the majority left uncompensated and defrauded, in spite of the fact that they are equally deserving of compensation. Most responsible for this injustice are the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court. These judges have betrayed the people of Washington State with their failure to uphold the property rights of Washington State citizens. They have betrayed us with their cover-up of the ELS tax fraud scheme.

         My name is John Rasmussen. Iím a victim of this East Lake Sammamish (ELS) Federal Tax Fraud Scheme. I lost much more than my land to the judges who committed the crimes I describe on this page. I lost my rights as a citizen of the United States. I was denied the right to present and resolve the facts before a jury of my peers. I was denied the right of due process that was formerly "guaranteed" in our Constitution. There was no Constitution. There was no Bill of Rights when I went to court to defend my property rights from theft by my government. I've given up on the possibility of finding justice in our present legal system, but I hope my sons and grandson might find a more just legal system in their lives. For that to happen, the people in Washington State need to understand the corruption in our courts, and demand a return to the rule of law. Hopefully this website will help that happen.

         The ELS federal tax fraud scheme and its cover-up by judges, prosecutors, politicians, and activists is the subject of this website. What I describe here is an intentional criminal act by King County against hundreds of its citizens and the intentional cover-up of the crime by federal and state judges, including the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court.

    My statements describing corruption, dishonesty, wrongdoing or criminal actions in this Introduction
    are a First Amendment expression of MY OPINION
    .



The Issues:
Outline of The Issues
(Each issue is presented here as a hyperlink.)

    * The East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme.

    * King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng knew that he was accepting fraudulently donated land.

    * Norm Maleng did what most crooked lawyers do to cover-up their crimes. He lied.

    * Federal and Washington State Judges covered-up the East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme.

    * Some of the Hilchkanum Opinions are blatant Criminal Acts from the Bench.

      * King County v. Rasmussen (2001): A Criminal Act from the Bench.

      * King County v. Rasmussen (2002): A Criminal Act from the Bench

      * Ray v. King County (2004): A Criminal Act from the Bench.

    * The judges of our Washington State Supreme Court participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud
       scheme with their refusal to review and correct Ray v. King County.

    * With her Beres opinions, Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn disregarded the advice of our
       Washington State Supreme Court, refused to adopt the dishonest precedent established in the Ray and Rasmussen
       decisions, and found in favor of ELS landowners. Judge Horn found the Hilchkanum deed conveyed an easement!

    * Summary of the Issues


The East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme:

         It's federal tax fraud to write-off a false donation in order to reduce ones federal taxes. Burlington Northern Santa-Fe Railroad (BNSF) took a illegal $40 million write-off for a "donation" of East Lake Sammamish right-of-way land to King County. This was land BNSF did not own. King County accepted the donation with the knowledge that it was fraudulent.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read a detailed description of the East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme.


King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng knew that he was accepting fraudulently donated land.

         King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng provided the legal advice for King County with respect to the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) Federal Tax Fraud Scheme. He advised the leadership of King County to accept the phony donation of the land under the ELS right-of-way from BNSF. Norm Maleng knew that donation was fraudulent.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The East Lake Sammamish BNSF right-of-way had been established in 1887 by the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E). When King County accepted the phony tax donation from BNSF in 1998, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng had previously been involved in two lawsuits which involved the question of whether 1887 SLS&E deeds granted easements or fee simple title of the land underlying the SLS&E right-of-way. Norm Maleng lost both of these earlier lawsuits in which about thirteen SLS&E right-of-way deeds were determined to grant easements. These two decisions are: Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990). In Lawson, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng agreed that all the deeds conveyed right-of-way easements. In Squire, the court decided the deed conveyed an easement. Further, in early 1997 the King County Office of Open Space explained that King County believed 98% of the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way was easements. Yet in 1998, Maleng claimed that all of the SLS&E right-of-way deeds along East Lake Sammamish granted fee simple title of the land to the Railway. Since he had advised the leadership of King County to accept all of this land as a tax write-off gift from BNSF, Norm Maleng need this claim to protect himself and his staff from federal tax fraud prosecution. But Maleng had a big problem with this dishonest claim. His problem was that deeds which were presented in Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990) are materially identical to the East Lake Sammamish SLS&E right-of-way deeds, including the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed (which is a focus of this website). In these SLS&E deeds, the granting language is the critical factor in determining they convey an easement, and they all use identical granting language. How could Maleng claim that ELS deeds, which have identical granting language to deeds which had previously been determined to be easements, now be determined to grant fee simple title?    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         To fully understand the profound dishonesty of King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng in advising the King County leadership to accept the phony tax donation from BNSF, a person needs to read the deeds which were construed in Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990), read the Lawson and Squire opinions, and then compare those Lawson and Squire deeds to the SLS&E deeds which were used to establish the ELS right of way. That takes some work. A skeptical reader should do this. The truth and the law support my statements. The truth is that all these deeds were based on a form deed written by the SLS&E lawyers. If the earlier Lawson and Squire opinions found the granting language of these form deeds to convey an easement, the granting language of the SLS&E deeds along East Lake Sammamish should be construed to have the same meaning. This is the concept of legal precedent, which is the basis of common law. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and his staff were very aware of this fact when, on Maleng's advice, King County accepted the phony tax donation from BNSF. The following eight deeds show the fact that East Lake Sammamish SLS&E deeds have identical granting language to the deeds which had previously been determined to be easements in Lawson and Squire. The first two SLS&E deeds are from Lawson and Squire, and the following six SLS&E deeds are from the ELS right-of-way. Read the deeds. Read the opinions. Then, ask yourself how Maleng could claim the ELS SLS&E right-of-way deed's granting language could have a new and different meaning from the meaning construed in Lawson and Squire opinions. Please do this. The reader is the jury here.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "I do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the Bargquist right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was agreed by the King County Prosecutor
          to be an easement in Lawson v. State (1986).

      "we do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed by the court to be an easement
          in King County v. Squire (1990).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Tahalthkut right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to be
          an easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Davis right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to be an
          easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Sbedzuse right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to be
          an easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Yonderpump right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to
          be an easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "I do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Palmberg right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to be
          an easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. Construed to be an easement in
          Beres v. US (2011). Construed to be fee simple in King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002),
          and Ray v. King County (2004).

         The granting words of these eight deeds are identical. This is because all eight deeds are based on the form deed written by the SLS&E lawyers. This is how railroads established their rights-of-way. After being granted their charter, which gave then the right of eminent domain, the railroad lawyers typically wrote a sample deed and took it for signature to the landowners affected by their proposed railroad right-of-way. Sometimes the landowners made small changes and then signed the deed. Often they simply signed the form deed the railroad provided. If they refused to sign, the railroad established their right-of-way using their chartered right of eminent domain, without the landowner's agreement. So, it is no coincidence that these SLS&E deeds have identical granting language.

         Because the granting words are identical and come from the same SLS&E form deed, the Lawson and Squire opinions, which held these granting words to convey an easement, should have provided the strongest argument for the Rasmussen and Ray judges to consider in construing the words of the Hilchkanum deed. But, that was not the outcome King County wanted nor what the Rasmussen and Ray judges determined. The Rasmussen and Ray judges refused to acknowledge this legal precedent.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         This website deals with the construing, and misconstruing, of the May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. As I update this paragraph in 2019, the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed has been construed in the courts more than ten times (if one includes denied appeals). Despite the requirement that juries resolve questions of material fact, no jury was allowed to resolve those issues of fact in Rasmussen or Ray. This violates the rules of summary judgment. Use the following link for a discussion of the legal precedent (rules) used to determine whether a railroad deed conveys an easement or fee simple interest.     (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand the Basic Rules to Construe a Railroad Right-of-Way Deed.

    Here are the published Hilchkanum opinions in chronological order.

      Fee Simple Opinions:

      In King County v. Rasmussen (2001), the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was determined to be a fee simple grant by Ninth Circuit Federal District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein.

      In King County v. Rasmussen (2002), the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was determined to be a fee simple grant by Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher and panel.

      In Ray v. King County (2004), the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was determined to be a fee simple grant by Washington State Appeals Court, Division One, Judges Ronald E. Cox and Ann Schindler. Judge William W. Baker dissented.

      Collateral Estoppel Opinion:

      In Beres v. United States (2010), Gerald and Kathryn Ray were not allowed to relitigate the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed by United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn. Judge Horn denied the Ray's claim, citing the doctrine of collateral estoppel. But, about fourteen other parties were allowed to pursue a takings claim based the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed.

      Easement Opinions:

      In Beres v. United States (2011), the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was determined to be an easement by U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn. While King County v. Rasmussen and Ray v. King County are mentioned throughout the opinion, Judge Horn tears apart Rasmussen and Ray starting at the bottom of page 57.

      In Beres v. United States (2012), the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was determined to be an easement by United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn. The opinion concludes that the establishment of the ELS Trail constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and that the parties may proceed with their claims. In addition to the other ELS parties, this allowed about fourteen parties to resolve a taking claim based on the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E being an easement.

         So, which of these opinions is correct? Rothstein, Fletcher, Cox, and Schindler "decided" that the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed granted fee simple title of the land under the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) right-of-way. The judges of our Washington State Supreme Court refused to consider appeal, allowing the criminal opinion of Judges Cox and Schindler to stand. Yet, in spite of this legal precedent, Federal Judge Horn decided that the same 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed granted an easement. No jury has been allowed to resolve disputed facts in any of the Hilchkanum opinions. I don't have the briefs to know if issues of material fact were disputed in the Federal Court of Claims, but I know that Judges Rothstein, Fletcher, Cox, Schindler and the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court were all made aware of questions of material fact, but allowed summary judgment in violation of the law and the Constitution.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View a more detailed explanation of the Prosecutorís knowledge he was participating in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.


Norm Maleng did what most crooked lawyers do to cover-up their crimes. He lied.

         As explained above, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng knew King County was accepting fraudulently donated land when he advised the King County leadership to accept BNSF's donation in 1998. Norm Maleng had lost Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990). He admitted that all of the deeds in Lawson were easements, and he lost Squire when the court determined that the Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E was an easement. In the record, there is only one other SLS&E deed that has been considered in King County courts. That is the Burke right-of-way deed to the SLS&E which was construed to be an easement in Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber (1910). With every SLS&E deed previously being determined to be an easement, and many other Washington State railroad deeds previously construed in our courts, there was no legal precedent for Maleng to use to justify his acceptance of the phony tax donation of the land under the ELS right-of-way from BNSF. So, Maleng did what most crooked lawyers do to cover-up their crimes. The King County Prosecutor lied. Maleng manufactured a new legal precedent to support his false claims of ELS right-of-way land ownership.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Maleng needed an opinion he could misrepresent in order to justify his illegal acceptance of the BNSF donation. His strongest argument would a Washington State Supreme Court opinion which supported his claim. The latest Washington Supreme Court opinion which dealt with Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E) deeds was Lawson v. State (1986). That opinion needed to be hidden by Maleng because he had admitted that all the deeds in Lawson v. State (1986) were easements. Since the granting clause of the Bargquist right-of-way deed to the SLS&E in Lawson v. State is identical to a number of East Lake Sammamish SLS&E right-of-way deeds, as shown in the section directly above, Norm Maleng needed to find some other opinion which he could misconstrue in order to hide his participation in the East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme. There was only one choice for Maleng, a choice which didn't apply to the ELS deeds. Brown v. State of Washington (1996) was the only Washington State Supreme Court opinion which construed the easement-or-fee issue in railroad right-of-way deeds, and was later than Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990). So, Maleng claimed that Brown v. State of Washington signaled a radical change in the way railroad right-of-way deeds are construed in the State of Washington. He claimed that Brown established a new and binding precedent to use in construing the easement-or-fee issue in railroad deeds. In common law, the newer 1996 Brown opinion would take precedent over the 1986 Supreme Court Lawson opinion. It would also would take precedent over the Squire opinion, which was both older and from the lower Division One Court of Appeals. So, in 1997, prior to accepting the phony tax donation form BNSF, Maleng and his staff published a white paper explaining that Brown v. State of Washington had changed the way railroad deeds are construed. This dishonest document laid out the strategy the Prosecutor and King County would use to justify accepting a fraudulent donation from BNSF. Use the following links to read the white paper (Memorandum) and my analysis of that dishonest memorandum.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      September 1997 White Paper (Memorandum) by King County Deputy Prosecutor Bill Blakney.

      My analysis of the September 1997 White Paper by King County Deputy Prosecutor Bill Blakney.

         But, there was a problem for Maleng to argue that Brown applied to the East Lake Sammamish SLS&E right-of-way deeds. In Brown v. State of Washington, the Washington State Supreme Court construed 1906-1910 deeds to the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company (Milwaukee Railroad), which were in Statutory Warranty Form. The Statutory Warranty Deed Form was established to convey land and therefore presumes a fee simple transfer. The SLS&E right-of-way deeds, patterned on the Hilchkanum and other SLS&E deeds shown above, were not in Statutory Warranty Form but rather conveyed a "right of way" in the granting clause. This language had always been construed to grant an easement in Washington State common law. I describe these two different precedents as the "Railroad Land Granting Rule" and the "Railroad Right-of-Way Granting Rule", and explain the differences in the links below. Of course these aren't formal "Rules" explicitly explained by our judges. God forbid that the people of Washington State have rules (laws) to live by, when judges want to have as much latitude as possible to enforce their personal agendas. These "rules" are a summation of a study of the published railroad right-of-way opinions which deal with the issue of easement-or-fee in railroad right-of-way deeds in Washington State. Please read these "rules".     (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "Railroad Land Granting Rule"

      "Railroad Right-of-Way Granting Rule"

         So, Norm Maleng applied the rules (precedent) used to construe railroad deeds, which were written in Statutory Warranty Form and presumed to convey land, to the ELS SLS&E right-of-way deeds which did not grant land, were not in Statutory Warranty Form, and granted only a "right of way". Maleng claimed Brown determined that the grant of a "right of way" to a railroad grants the land under the right-of-way. He claimed that the term "right of way" and "strip of land" in a railroad deed granting clause mean the same thing, with respect to easement-or-fee. Norm Maleng claimed that a deed granting a "right of way" to a railroad would be an easement only if it contained an additional statement limiting the deed to right-of-way use or purpose. There is no such conclusion of law in Brown, but Maleng manufactured that lie to hide his participation in the East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme. Maleng cited elements of the "Railroad Land Granting Rule", which had been applied to the Milwaukee Railroad deeds by the Washington State Supreme Court in Brown v. State of Washington (1996), and tried to morph and adapt them into the elements of the "Railroad Right-of-Way Granting Rule". The "Railroad Right-of-Way Granting Rules" were not emphasized in Brown because none of the Brown deeds granted a "right of way" in the granting clause or habendum, or had other restrictive language implying the purpose of those Milwaukee deeds was for a railroad "right of way". Essentially, Norm Maleng was trying to fit a "round peg into a square hole" by suggesting Brown had established a "sea change" in Washington State property law. I've named Maleng's dishonest legal argument "Norm Maleng's 'legal theory'" and discuss it in detail in the link below. Of course, the critical hurdle for Maleng was to get Federal and Washington State judges to "buy" his dishonest argument. That's discussed next.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand Norm Maleng's "legal theory"


Federal and Washington State Judges Covered-up the East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme by adopting "Norm Maleng's 'legal theory'".

         It would not matter that Norm Maleng and his staff at the King County Prosecutor's office lied in order to cover-up their participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme unless they could get Federal and Washington state judges to adopt the Prosecutor's dishonest legal argument. If the Prosecutor could get judges to adopt his dishonest argument, he would be protected from federal prosecution. As I explained above, I call the Prosecutor's dishonest legal argument Norm Maleng's "legal theory". The first judge to "buy" his dishonest argument was Federal District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein. Rothstein committed a crime from the bench with her denial of my rights, her theft of my land, and her cover-up of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. After, Rothstein's opinion, the following Hilchkanum opinions fell like dominos, with the weight of the previous dishonest opinion tipping the next. In my experience, the highest priority for judges is to protect their own, not to protect the rights of lowly citizens. My lawsuit, King County v. Rasmussen, went through the federal court system. I was denied my rights in two published opinions, then denied legitimate appeal all the way to The United States Supreme Court. After the dishonesty I experienced, I filed a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, which was also denied by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Schroeder. My neighbors, Gerald and Kathryn Ray, took the identical claim (that the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E granted only an easement) through the Washington State courts system and to the Washington State Supreme Court. In the Ray v. King County opinions, the law was disregarded and the Rays were denied their rights. The King County v. Rasmussen and Ray v. King County opinions are briefly discussed below, and there are links to extensive discussion of these very dishonest opinions.    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         After the Rays lost their appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, they filed a takings claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Rays were denied their right to claim the Hilchkanum deed granted an easement in the Court of Federal Claims based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue). Yet, "about fourteen" other parties, basing their claim on the fact that the Hilchkanum deed granted an easement, were allowed to proceed with their claims. Subsequently, United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn has issued two decisions finding that Hilchkanum deed granted an easement and that the "about fourteen" parties basing their claim on the Hilchkanum deed were due compensation for a taking. Judge Horn essentially reversed the crooked King County v. Rasmussen and Ray v. King County opinions with her opinions, Beres v. United States (2011) and Beres v. United States (2012). The refusal by Judge Horn to be bound by the obvious dishonesty of Rasmussen and Ray is discussed further below. Itís important to explain here that Judge Horn found that some ELS clainants should be granted compensation, based on her construing of the 1887 Hilchkanum deed, yet the Rays be denied compensation, based on exactly the same criteria. This is the state of our judiciary. An "honest" Judge Horn protecting the dishonesty of her fellow judges by denying justice to the Rays, yet providing justice for other ELS landowners in our obvious corrupt judicial system.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The Hilchkanum Homestead (Application 1876, Patent issued 1888) contained about 4,500 feet of East Lake Sammamish waterfront. In present times, that is equal to about 75 lots with 60 feet lake frontage. Judge Horn's decisions, finding the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed granted an easement, affected only thirteen present day deeds established within the Hilchkanum homestead. Since there is the possibility of about 75 lakefront lots, as I explained above, it's likely that less than 20% of the eligible parties filed claims based on the taking of the Hilchkanum right-of-way land. I'm considering here only those claims related to the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. As explained above, the Hilchkanum homestead occupied less that a mile of the ELS shoreline. The ELS right-of-way is more than ten miles long. Therefore, hundreds of ELS landowners were defrauded by King County's participation in the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) Federal Tax Fraud Scheme. For the parties who did not file taking claims, their property rights are lost, or perhaps in limbo, with Washington State opinions finding King County owns the land under the right-of-way, and Federal Judge Horn finding King County does not own that underlying land. Most responsible for this loss are the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court. This is explained further below, in detail.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


Some of the Hilchkanum Opinions are Blatant Criminal Acts from the Bench.

         In the Rasmussen and Ray opinions, which are briefly discussed and linked directly below, the judges adopted Norm Maleng's "legal theory". In all three opinions, the judges changed the words in the Hilchkanum deed and then construed their substituted language. How's that for crooked? All of these opinions illegally used summary judgment, taking away the Constitutional right of the Rasmussens and Rays to resolve questions of fact by a jury. All three judges cherry-picked subsequent Hilchkanum real estate deeds in order to find false intentions for the Hilchkanums in their right-of-way deed. They ignored more relevant deeds which a legitimate jury would have used to come to a different conclusion. Essentially every significant conclusion by these judges is dishonest. These opinions are blatant and obvious criminal acts from the bench. I've grouped them with the "Hilchkanum Opinions", opinions which construed and misconstrued the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    King County v. Rasmussen (2001): A Criminal Act from the Bench.

         In my declaration to Federal District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, I described the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and provided evidence of fraud. This evidence should have put King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and some of his staff in federal prison. On a motion from the Prosecutor, Rothstein struck my description of the tax fraud and the evidence. How convenient for Norm Maleng!

      View my declaration to Judge Rothstein. (Portions struck by Rothstein are highlighted in yellow.)

    Judge Rothstein then illegally allowed summary judgment with important questions of material fact in dispute. Judge Rothstein ignored the facts, the law, and my Constitutional right of due process. She struck legitimate facts that we briefed, and substituted undocumented and unsupported facts which she manufactured. Rothstein was dishonest in every critical aspect of her opinion.     (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In the links below, I provide three versions of King County v. Rasmussen (2001).

      Read King County v. Rasmussen (2001) with brief comments inserted by me.

      Read King County v. Rasmussen (2001) with detailed comments inserted by me.

      Read King County v. Rasmussen (2001) with no comments inserted by me.


    King County v. Rasmussen (2002): A Criminal Act from the Bench.

         My appeal of King County v. Rasmussen (2001) was heard by a three judge Ninth Circuit panel. The panel was led by Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, and she issued the opinion. Fletcher and panel ignored our briefing, the facts, the law, and the Constitution, and simply restated Rothstein's dishonest King County v. Rasmussen (2001 opinion. Fletcher's opinion covers up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and protects her fellow Seattle based Ninth Circuit judge (Rothstein) from being held responsible for her criminal act in Federal District Court.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In the links below, I provide three versions of King County v. Rasmussen (2002).

      Read King County v. Rasmussen (2002) with brief comments inserted by me.

      Read King County v. Rasmussen (2002) with detailed comments inserted by me.

      Read King County v. Rasmussen (2002) with no comments inserted by me.


    Ray v. King County (2004): A Criminal Act from the Bench.

         I took my lawsuit, King County v. Rasmussen, through federal courts. My neighbors, Gerald and Kathryn Ray, took the same issue through Washington State courts. At issue was the dishonest claim of ownership by King County of the land under the BNSF right-of-way along East Lake Sammamish. In both of our lawsuits, King County based its claim on its misconstruing of the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.

         In Ray v. King County (2004), Washington State Appeals Court, Division One, Chief Judges Ronald E. Cox was required to apply the findings in King County v. Squire (1990). As a Division One opinion, Squire was binding precedent on Washington State Division One courts. But, Division One Chief Judge Ronald E. Cox could not adopt the findings in Squire, in which the court determined that the identical granting clause "...strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...", and still award fee simple title of the land under the Hilchkanum (BNSF) right-of-way to King County. So, Cox dishonestly stated that "Squire is not controlling, merely instructive", and then refused to honestly discuss or adopt the findings in Squire as required by the rules of precedent. Instead, Cox adopted Norm Maleng's "legal theory" and issued an opinion which covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In the links below, I provide three versions of Ray v. King County (2004).

      Read Ray v. King County (2004) with brief comments inserted by me.

      Read Ray v. King County (2004) with detailed comments inserted by me.

      Read Ray v. King County (2004) with no comments inserted by me.

         I've written a study which contains a discussion on the dishonesty of Ray. The link directly below will open that document at the position I discuss the dishonesty in Ray in greater detail than discussed above.

      Read a more detailed discussion about the dishonesty in Ray v. King County (2004).

         It's hard to decide which is the most dishonest statement made in Ray v. King County (2004). There are so many to choose from. My vote goes to Cox' conclusion that the notary public, who apparently merely copied the Hilchkanum deed into the King County record, was the actual author of the Hilchkanum deed. This is the equivalent of finding a copy machine is the author of the pages it copies! Based on this lie that the notary was author, Cox construed the words of the Hilchkanum deed against the Hilchkanums, illiterate Native Americans who signed the deed with an "X". In his dissenting opinion, Judge William W. Baker pointed out that this "...creates a material question of fact concerning who actually drafted the [Hilchkanum right-of-way deed]." Under the rules of summary judgment, questions of material fact are resolved by juries. Of course, no jury was allowed. Read Judge William Baker's dissenting opinion in Ray v. King County (2004).
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting) with brief comments inserted by me.

      Read Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting) with no comments inserted by me.

         In King County v. Squire (1990), the court identified the changes made to the deed by Watson Squire, the grantor. If those changes are removed, the Squire and Hilchkanum deeds are identical with respect to the granting and habendum language. Those granting words were taken from the SLS&E form deed which was written by the SLS&E lawyers and taken to the settlers along the path of the proposed railway for signature. The granting words in the Squire deed were found to "...strongly suggest[] conveyance of an easement..." by the Squire judges. Judges Cox and Schindler dishonestly made up the material fact that the notary public, who filed the deed for the SLS&E, was author of the Hilchkanum deed. This provided a phony justification for Cox and Schindler to not apply the binding precedent set in Squire to the construing of the Hilchkanum deed. These crooked judges knew a legitimate jury would find the SLS&E lawyers authored the Hilchkanum deed and that the legal precedent set in Squire should apply. So, no jury was allowed. This violated the Ray's constitutional right of due process.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


The judges of our Washington State Supreme Court participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme with their refusal to review and correct Ray v. King County.

         After Gerald and Kathryn Ray lost title to their ELS right-of-way land in King County Superior Court, they appealed directly to the Washington State Supreme Court (WSSC). The WSSC declined the direct appeal, forcing the Rays to take their appeal to the Washington State Appeals Court, Division One. There, Chief Judge Ronald E. Cox issued the dishonest opinion, Ray v. King County (2004), which I briefly discussed above. After losing in Washington State Appeals Court, Division One, the Rays appealed to the WSSC a second time. Again, the WSSC refused to accept appeal, letting the criminal act committed by Judge Cox stand and change the legal precedent used to construe railroad deeds in Washington State. Unsatisfied, the Rays and a group of other ELS residents filed taking claims with the United States Court of Federal Claims. There, because Ray v. King County (2004) was inconsistent with earlier Washington State railroad right-of-way opinions, a motion was filed by the plaintiffs in Beres v. United States asking for the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court to provide clarification of the law used to construe railroad deeds. Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Horn accepted that motion and asked the Washington State Supreme Court to answer questions which essentially amounted to another appeal of Ray v. King County (2004). The judges of our Washington State Supreme Court again refused to explain the law they used in allowing Ray to stand. Effectively, the WSSC refused a Ray "appeal" for the third time. This denial by the WSSC is explained in Beres v. United States (2010), and is cited here:    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           "In January 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting certification to the Washington State Supreme Court on questions of state law. This court agreed and forwarded the following questions to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington:

        1. When the granting clause of a deed expressly conveys a "right-of-way" to a railroad, does Washington state law hold that the property interest conveyed to the railroad is an easement as distinguishable from a fee simple?

        2. Under Washington state law, did the above-quoted language of the 1887 deeds convey fee simple absolute interest in the Seattle Railway Company, or, instead, did the deeds convey an easement?

      Plaintiffs' certification request, as forwarded to the Washington State Supreme Court, indicated that this court, the parties and other future litigants could benefit from additional guidance from the Supreme Court of Washington.

           In the published order, which granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the questions to the Washington State Supreme Court, Schroeder v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 508 (2005), this court explained:

        Although the Brown court set out seven possible factors for consideration by other courts, whether the plaintiffs' deeds convey an easement or a fee is not easily determined without prioritization within the factors, and guidance regarding the seventh factor, which includes "many other considerations suggested by the language of the particular deed." Even the lower Washington state courts seem to arrive at differing resolutions. At a minimum, a declaration by the Supreme Court of Washington on this matter would be welcome in order to best resolve the issue of whether the multiple plaintiffs in the cases before this court can continue with their Fifth Amendment taking claims.

      Id. at 519 (quoting Brown v. State, 924 P.2d 908, 912 (Wash.), recons. Denied, (Wash. 1996).

           The Supreme Court of the State of Washington, however, declined the request for certification, stating:

        The court is of the view that, in light of existing precedent such as Brown v. State, 130 Wn.2d 430, 924 P.2d 908 (1996) and Ray v. King County, 120 Wn. App. 564, 86 P.3d 183, review denied, 152 Wn.2d 1027 (2004), the questions posed by the federal court are not 'question[ s] of state law... which [have] not been clearly determined.'"
      [Beres v. United States (2010)] (Found on Pages 9 and 10.)

         I've learned to be skeptical when a judge or lawyer uses the term "clearly" or "clear" in their opinion or brief. Too often it signals that the issue is anything but clear. That is the case with the "clearly determined" lie by the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court in the citation above. It is obscene for the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court to state that Brown and Ray provide a clear explanation of the precedent Judge Horn would need to construe the ELS SLS&E right-of-way deeds because Brown and Ray contradict each other. Brown finds that the term "right of way" in the granting clause of a railroad deed is construed in Washington State common law to mean an easement. Ray finds that the term "right of way" in the granting clause of a railroad deed is construed in Washington State common law to mean a "strip of land", and the grant of a strip of land conveys fee simple title. Since the Supreme Court judges could not explain the inconsistency in their advice, they dishonestly stated that the issue was "clearly determined" in Ray and Brown. Any attempt to explain in detail would expose their dishonesty, so they give the "clearly" argument and "slam the door" in the face of Judge Horn. More on this in the next section, below, dealing with Judge Horn's Beres opinions.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In 2006, our Supreme Court judges were again challenged to consider Ray v. King County (2004). In Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Association (2006) our Washington State Supreme Court dealt with the critical issue which was before the courts in Ray. This critical issue was whether the Kershaw deed granted easement or fee to the railroad. In Kershaw, the easement-or-fee issue involved a railroad deed containing conflicting presumptions. The deed was in statutory warranty deed form, which established the presumption of a fee simple grant of the land. The other presumption in Kershaw was that an easement was conveyed. This was caused by the deed language explaining that the conveyance was for right-of-way or railroad purposes. Our Supreme Court found that this second presumption of an easement overcame the presumption of a fee simple grant, which was established by the use of the statutory warranty deed form. The Kershaw deed was found to convey an easement. This presumption of an easement was not enforced in Ray, where a "right of way" was conveyed to the SLS&E Railway in the Hilchkanum granting clause. So, this 2006 Kershaw opinion contradicts our Supreme Court's 2005 advice to Judge Horn to use Ray for precedent, as shown in the citation above. In fact, defendant Level 3 cited Ray in its brief and applied the finding in Ray to the issue of easement-or-fee in Kershaw. To hide their crime, our Washington State Supreme Court judges provided their response to Level 3 in Footnote 11 of Kershaw. Crooked judges and lawyers like to hide their dishonesty in footnotes. In Footnote 11 of Kershaw, our Supreme Court judges misstated the granting words of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed (the right-of-way deed construed in Ray), and then dishonestly dismissed a comparison between the Kershaw and Hilchkanum deeds. This tactic of misstating or changing the granting words of the Hilchkanum deed was also used by judges in Ray v. King County and King County v. Rasmussen. It is an adoption of Norm Maleng's "legal theory". This dishonesty is evidence that the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court (WSSC) intentionally participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and are responsible for the theft of more than $10 million in land from innocent ELS landowners. Further, our Supreme Court judges covered-up BNSF's fraudulent $40 million federal tax write-off with their refusal to correct Ray. I've written a study which supports my opinion that our Washington State Supreme Court judges intentionally participated in the tax fraud scheme. The study provides conflicting citations from Brown and Kershaw which explain my statements above. A link to that study is provided directly below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Did the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court intentionally participate in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme?

         With respect to Washington State property law, "the buck stops" with our Supreme Court. The actions of the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court in dealing with Ray v. King County suggest that they intentionally covered-up King County's participation in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme. In doing so, they also became participants in the crime.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View my 2009 letter to the Washington State Supreme Court regarding its participation in the ELS tax fraud scheme.


With her Beres opinions, Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn disregarded the advice of our Washington State Supreme Court, refused to adopt the dishonest precedent established in the Ray and Rasmussen decisions, and found in favor of ELS landowners. Judge Horn found the Hilchkanum deed conveyed an easement!

         The powerful folks in King County, who participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, didn't have unlimited influence to get their crime covered-up. Starting in 2005, a group of citizens from East Lake Sammamish began to get justice in the United States Federal Court of Claims. By "justice", I mean an acknowledgment of Washington State common law precedent, an acknowledgment of the facts (the truth), and a commitment to the constitutions of the United States and Washington State. Those facts and cherished rights were not adopted in the federal and State courts of Washington when the judges participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. In Beres v. United States, Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn politely trashed the Washington State Supreme Court, Washington State Appeals Court, Division One, and the federal Ninth Circuit in her two opinions finding the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E granted an easement.     (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I repeat here some of that stated in the sections above. I do this because I link directly to this section from other documents and need to lay out the background for those who have not read this section in the context of this complete page. I apologize for the redundancy.

         After Gerald and Kathryn Ray lost Ray v. King County in King County Superior Court, they appealed directly to the Washington State Supreme Court (WSSC). The WSSC declined their direct appeal, forcing the Rays to apply to Washington State Appeals Court. Division One Chief Judge Ronald E. Cox issued the dishonest opinion, Ray v. King County (2004). After losing in Division One, the Rays went back to the WSSC with a second appeal. Again, the WSSC refused to accept appeal, letting the criminal act committed by Judge Cox stand and change the legal precedent used to construe railroad deeds. Unsatisfied, the Rays and a group of other ELS residents filed taking claims with the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Rays were denied their right to claim a taking by Federal Claims Judge Marian Horn, based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the doctrine which prevents a person from relitigating an issue). But, "about fourteen" other ELS residents, basing their claim on the fact that the Hilchkanum deed granted an easement, were allowed to proceed with their taking claims. In her 2011 and 2012 Beres opinions, Judge Horn had reason to deny the claims of those "about fourteen" other ELS residents because the critical issue was whether the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of way deed granted an easement or a fee simple interest to the SLS&E. As shown in the Ray and Rasmussen opinions, that issue had already been "resolved" in Ninth Circuit and Washington State courts, finding fee title had been granted to the Railway in each opinion. My lawsuit, King County v. Rasmussen, went through the Ninth Circuit and was unsuccessfully appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I did not follow with a claim to the Federal Court of Claims. The Ray's lawsuit had been appealed to the WSSC twice, as explained above. With three published opinions holding the Hilchkanums granted fee simple title to the Railway and a number of unsuccessful appeals, Judge Horn denied only the claims of those who were party to the Ray lawsuit, allowing the "about fourteen" other ELS landowners to submit their claim based on the Hilchkanum deed granting an easement. While she painstakingly justified her reasons for denying the Ray's claim and allowing the other Hilchkanum claims to proceed, I wonder if Judge Horn "read between the lines" and saw the corruption and dishonesty involved in the "Ray and Rasmussen opinions". Did Judge Horn detest the dishonesty found in Ray and Rasmussen, yet feel the need to respect, or protect, the judges who issued those dishonest opinions? Did she refuse the Ray's claim out of respect for the judges who decided Ray v. King County, yet allow others making claim based on the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to proceed based on her sense of injustice? Judge Horn was in a unique position to read and understand the Ray and Rasmussen opinions because the arguments and exhibits presented to her in Beres were essentially the same that were presented for the Rays and Rasmussens.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Judge Horn consolidated the ELS claims and published her findings in the four Beres v. United States opinions which are linked directly below. Each opinion is paired with my companion "Introduction and Analysis".

      Beres v. United States (2005)
      View my Introduction and Analysis of Beres v. United States (2005)

      Beres v. United States (2010)
      View my Introduction and Analysis of Beres v. United States (2010)

      Beres v. United States (2011)
      View my Introduction and Analysis of Beres v. United States (2011)

      Beres v. United States (2012)
      View my Introduction and Analysis of Beres v. United States (2012)

         In Beres v. United States (2010), Gerald and Kathryn Ray were not allowed to relitigate the effect of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. Judge Horn denied the Ray's takings claim, citing the doctrine of collateral estoppel. But, about fourteen other parties were allowed to litigate the effect of that same Hilchkanum right-of-way deed and pursue a takings claim based on the Railbanking of the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way.

         As I wrote in the section above, it's very significant that in Beres v. United States (2010) Judge Horn challenged the Washington State Supreme Court to explain and justify its adoption of the dishonest legal analysis in Ray v. King County (2004). The Washington State Supreme Court's reply to Judge Horn's request for certification of these legal issues betrays the Washington Supreme Court's adoption of "Norm Maleng's 'Legal Theory'" and the court's participation in the cover-up of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         On a motion by the plaintiffs in Beres v. United States (2010), Judge Horn asked the Washington State Supreme Court to answer questions which essentially amounted to another appeal of Ray v. King County (2004). The judges of our Washington State Supreme Court refused to explain the law they used in allowing Ray v. King County (2004) to stand, cited here.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "The Supreme Court of the State of Washington, however, declined the request for certification, stating:

        The court is of the view that, in light of existing precedent such as Brown v. State, 130 Wn.2d 430, 924 P.2d 908 (1996) and Ray v. King County, 120 Wn. App. 564, 86 P.3d 183, review denied, 152 Wn.2d 1027 (2004), the questions posed by the federal court are not 'question[ s] of state law... which [have] not been clearly determined.'"     [Beres v. United States (2010)]

         In its reply to Judge Horn, the Washington State Supreme Court adopts the dishonest analysis in Ray v. King County (2004) and refuses to admit that Brown v. State of Washington (1996) construed deeds which were written in statutory warranty deed form, a deed form designed for fee simple conveyance of land. This deed form is construed differently than the ELS deeds, which directly grant a "right-of-way" to the railway. The judges of our Washington State Supreme Court could not honestly explain the law they used to deny the Ray's appeal without being confronted by their own analysis in Brown. Read this citation from Brown to understand the Washington State Supreme Court's analysis in Brown contradicts the findings in Ray v. King County (2004). These dishonest Washington State Supreme Court judges had no choice except to refuse Judge Horn's request for certification. They could not explain their dishonesty in allowing Ray to stand.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "The words "right of way" can have two purposes: (1) to qualify or limit the interest granted in a deed to the right to pass over a tract of land (an easement), or (2) to describe the strip of land being conveyed to a railroad for the purpose of constructing a railway. Morsbach, 152 Wash. at 568; Harris 120 Wn.2d at 737. Unlike Swan, Veach, and Roeder, where "right of way" was used in the granting or habendum clauses to qualify or limit the interest granted, "right of way" in the deeds at issue here appears in either the legal description of the property conveyed or in the portion of the deeds describing Milwaukee's obligations with respect to the property."
      [Brown v. State of Washington (1996)]

         This citation from Brown differentiates deeds "where 'right of way' was used in the granting...clause[] to qualify or limit the interest granted in a deed to the right to pass over a tract of land (an easement)..." from deeds where the term right of way was used to merely "...describe the strip of land being conveyed to a railroad for the purpose of constructing a railway". The above citation from Brown v. State of Washington (1996) conforms to one hundred years of precedent used to construe railroad right-of-way deeds. Go back to an earlier discussion in this page to understand the East Lake Sammamish SLS&E right-of-way deeds used the term "right of way" in their granting clauses to convey an easement under the rules the Washington State Supreme Court used in Brown, cited just above. Use these links to observe the granting language of the ELS deeds and understand that they used "...'right of way' [] in the granting...clause() to qualify or limit the interest granted in a deed to the right to pass over a tract of land (an easement)...".

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Tahalthkut right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to be
          an easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Davis right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to be an
          easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Sbedzuse right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to be
          an easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Yonderpump right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to
          be an easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "I do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Palmberg right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This SLS&E deed was construed to be
          an easement in Beres v. US (2011).

      "we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a
      right of way"

          View the East Lake Sammamish Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. Construed to be an easement in
          Beres v. US (2011). Construed to be fee simple in King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002),
          and Ray v. King County (2004).

         The Washington State Supreme Court hides its criminal act in not correcting Ray v. King County (2004) by dishonestly replying to Judge Horn that the precedent is so "clearly determined" in Brown v. State of Washington (1996) and Ray v. King County (2004) that it doesn't need to explain. As explained above, Brown and Ray contradict each other. So, any legitimate effort by the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court to answer Judge Horn's questions would have exposed the crime our Supreme Court judges committed in allowing Ray to stand on appeal.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In Beres v. United States (2011), the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was determined to be an easement by U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn. Judge Horn ignored the advice of our Washington State Supreme Court to use Ray as precedent to construe the ELS right-of-way deeds and determined easements were conveyed in all six 1887 SLS&E right-of-way deeds she construed. Her justification for ignoring the advice of our Washington State Supreme Court was based on her analysis of Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Association (2006), a Washington State Supreme Court opinion just two years after the Supreme Court refused the Ray's appeal. In Kershaw, defendant Level 3 cited Ray in its brief and applied the finding in Ray to the issue of easement-or-fee in Kershaw. Our Washington State Supreme Court judges refused that argument. They dishonestly hid their reply to Level 3 in a footnote of Kershaw. In Footnote 11 of Kershaw, our Supreme Court judges misstated the granting words of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed and then dishonestly dismissed a comparison between the Kershaw and Hilchkanum deeds. This tactic of misstating or changing the granting words of the Hilchkanum deed was also used by judges in Ray v. King County and King County v. Rasmussen. It is an adoption of "Norm Maleng's 'Legal Theory'", the dishonest legal argument concocted by the King County Prosecutor to hide his participation in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme. Here is a link to a more detailed discussion of this subject.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Open my Analysis of Beres v. United States (2011) at position I discuss Judge Horn's adoption of Kershaw.

         In Beres v. United States (2012), the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was determined to be an easement by United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn. The opinion concludes that the establishment of the ELS Trail constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and that the parties may proceed with their claims. In addition to the other ELS parties, this allowed about fourteen parties to resolve a taking claim based on the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E being an easement.

         In spite of the legal precedent established with our Supreme Court's refusal to correct Ray, Federal Judge Horn decided that the same 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed granted an easement. No jury has been allowed to resolve disputed facts in any of the Hilchkanum opinions. I don't have the briefs to know if issues of material fact were disputed in the Federal Court of Claims, but I know that Judges Rothstein, Fletcher, Cox, Schindler and the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court were all made aware of questions of material fact, and allowed summary judgment in violation of the law and the Constitution. Here, again, are Judge Horn's Beres opinions. Each opinion is paired with a study containing my analysis.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Beres v. United States (2005)
      View my Introduction and Analysis of Beres v. United States (2005)

      Beres v. United States (2010)
      View my Introduction and Analysis of Beres v. United States (2010)

      Beres v. United States (2011)
      View my Introduction and Analysis of Beres v. United States (2011)

      Beres v. United States (2012)
      View my Introduction and Analysis of Beres v. United States (2012)

Summary of the Issues:

         This website describes the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) federal tax fraud scheme and its cover-up in our Washington State courts. I've explained that King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng knew that the County was accepting fraudulently donated land from BNSF with its railbanking transaction in 1998. To hide its participation in the crime, King County turned its resources against its ELS landowners, falsely claiming ownership of their land, publishing lies in the press, and pursuing quiet title actions against those it defrauded. Central to its false claim of ownership was Norm Maleng's dishonest legal argument that the law used to construe railroad deeds had been recently changed by our Washington State Supreme Court and that change justified King County's acceptance of BNSF's "donation". Sadly, federal and state judges adopted Norm Maleng's dishonest legal argument and awarded ELS landowner's land to the County. The opinions awarding ELS right-of-way land to King County are criminal acts from the bench. As the highest authority for Washington State property law, the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court are most responsible for the success of the ELS federal tax fraud scheme. The judges of our Washington State Supreme Court participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud with their refusal to review and correct Ray v. King County and with their later mischaracterization of Ray in their 2006 Kershaw opinion.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Some of the defrauded ELS landowners are being compensated for the taking of their land in the United States Court of Federal Claims , but most are not. Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn essentially reversed the dishonest Ray and Rasmussen decisions with her Beres opinions finding the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed granted an easement.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In my introduction, at the top of this page, I asked this question:

           "Who's right? Is Judge Horn correct with her Beres opinions, or are the judges who decided Ray and Rasmussen correct? Judge Horn decided that all the 1887 ELS right-of-way deeds she construed granted easements. This includes the Hilchkanum deed. In order to hide its participation in the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) Federal Tax Fraud Scheme, King County claimed all of these deeds granted fee simple title to the Railway. The Ray and Rasmussen judges agreed and awarded the right-of-way land to King County. Ray and Rasmussen set precedent to illegally award more than $10 million in ELS right-of-way land to King County."

         I believe I have answered that question with the discussion on this page. It is obvious that the Ray and Rasmussen opinions misapply the law and manipulate the facts. Because of the profound dishonesty throughout these opinions, they can only be seen as intentional criminal acts from the bench. On the other hand, the Beres opinions conform to the standard of honesty and thorough investigation that we expect from our judges and courts.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         We will always have crooked lawyers, like King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and his staff who committed criminal acts and made dishonest legal argument to cover-up their crimes. We depend on this injustice being corrected in our courts. That didn't happen with the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. This failure of our judges to enforce the law and Constitution destroys the legitimacy of our legal system. It is unacceptable that the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court covered-up the ELS tax fraud scheme and protected the politicians, lawyers, and their fellow judges who participated in the crime.    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Understand that the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court intentionally participated in the
    East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.



Proposed Solutions:

We-the-People:

         We-the-People are ultimately responsible for the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. While the King County Prosecutor and County leadership actively participated in the fraud, it is We-the-People who elected them, ignored their dishonest behavior, and failed to remove them when they betrayed our trust. While impeachment of judges is the duty of the legislature, it is We-the-People who have elected these representatives and failed to demand that they protect us from a judiciary that has abused its power and lost its way. It is We-the-People who buy newspapers from news organizations which decide it is not newsworthy to report massive corruption in our government. But, We-the-People can do something to stop this corruption before it is inherited by our children and grandchildren. It is We-the-People who must "right the ship".
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read my December 2014 Letter to the Residents of East Lake Sammamish.

The Judiciary:

    Recognize the Problem:

         We-the-People of the United States of America own our courts and our legal system. Our courts belong to us, and do not belong to judges and lawyers. When we go to court we expect our rights to be respected by this hired help we employ to administer our laws and the Constitution. That hired help includes the judges we elect, or are appointed by our elected representatives. But, that is not how our judicial system is presently working. Today, our judges believe that they own our legal system and can do whatever they choose, including the commission of crimes from the bench. Their fellow judges, in the higher courts of appeal, then protect them and hide their crimes. It appears that the first rule of being a judge is to protect and support fellow judges, even when they commit crimes from the bench. I don't choose to have my "hired help" defraud me and steal from my neighbors and me, but that is exactly what has happened with the judicial misconduct described in this website. We must recognize the corruption that is occurring in our courts and reestablish a legitimate judicial branch of our government, or our Nation will fail. It's that simple.     (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand that judges protect their fellow judges in violation of the law.

    Change the rules of Summary Judgment:

         Abuse of summary judgment has become the avenue by which many judges illegally control the outcome of cases before them. The rules of summary judgment must be changed to no longer allow the judge to decide if summary judgment is appropriate. Summary judgment must be allowed only when both of the parties agree. This will take complete control of a summary judgment case away from the judge and make it more difficult for criminal acts to be committed from the bench. This will give the parties a chance to review the biases of the judge and force the case to a jury when they know that they have no chance for justice based on the record of a crooked judge.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         When cases decided by summary judgment are appealed, the appeals court should be required to identify the material facts used to decide the case and certify that there was agreement on each of these facts by the parties in the case. Because of the massive corruption in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it will be necessary to completely remove summary judgment as an option until the present judiciary retires or is impeached.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand the concept and rules of summary judgment.

    Break the World's Most Powerful Labor Union:

         There is a willingness for judges to ignore the law and the Constitution in favor of supporting and protecting their fellow judges. This loyalty between judges, at the expense of the rights of Americans, establishes the most powerful labor union that has ever been organized. Federal Judge Rothstein covered-up the ELS federal tax fraud scheme and issued a decision that protected the participants in the crime. When her dishonest decision was appealed, she flashed her "union card" to the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals, and was protected by her fellow federal judge, Betty Binns Fletcher and later by the whole court, en banc. This powerful and dishonest labor union of judges needs to be broken if our Nation is to survive.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Is there treason in our courts?

      Understand the fraternity of legal professionals, and how it protects dishonest judges.

    Require a Higher Court to Review all Complaints of Judicial Misconduct:

         We must stop the present policy that complaints of judicial misconduct are processed by the fellow judges of the same court. That's judicial incest. "We-the-People" can no longer trust the judges of the Ninth Circuit to police themselves. Instead, starting at the top, the judges of the United States Supreme Court must take responsibility for the review of every complaint of judicial misconduct from the circuit courts immediately below. The United States Supreme Court would probably have an independent body assigned to investigate these complaints, then present its findings to the Court. This requirement for a higher court to take responsibility for misconduct complaints from the courts immediately below must be applied to our judicial system from top to bottom. Without legitimate accountability, our federal and state courts will continue their present downward spiral into the judicial sewer. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Require all Appeals Court Decisions to Contain a Comment on the Quality of the Work and the Honesty of the Lower Court Judge:

         There is a "pass the buck" attitude with lower court judges that must stop. It has become the privilege of lower court judges to decide whatever they want, and to justify that misconduct with the excuse that the parties always have a right to appeal. This action jams the higher courts with appeals, and sometimes makes it impossible for folks to pursue their rights in court due to the additional cost of the appeal. Judges of higher courts who review lower court opinions must be required to comment on the legitimacy of the lower court judge's rulings. We have fitness reports in every other area of our society. This will generate fitness reports for judges. Further, it will establish the basis for a complaint of judicial misconduct by a wronged appellant.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

King County Government:

    Demand an Accounting from the King County Politicians:

         Every significant politician in King County was notified of the federal tax fraud scheme and criminal acts committed by the Prosecutor. Not one politician asked to look at the evidence of the fraud, or made any effort to insure the County was operating legally. These folks need to explain why they refused to call for an investigation of the tax fraud scheme used to establish the Trail of Shame. Did they refuse to examine the crime because they were participants? Did they refuse to examine the crime because they feared they would be characterized as anti-trail, and lose votes? Did they lack the character and integrity to stand up for the law? They must explain their failure to uphold the law.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View my February 2000 letter to the King County leadership, describing the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

      View a list of the active participants in the ELS tax fraud scheme.

    Un-elect and prosecute crooked Politicians:

         King County Executive Ron Sims was made aware of the federal tax fraud scheme used to establish the ELS Trail. Instead of standing up for the truth and the law, he lied and used the power of his office to defraud his constituents. Gary Locke, the former King County Executive and former Washington State Governor, either actively participated in the crime, or was completely negligent (incompetent) in his duties. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng appears to be the key criminal in the County's participation in the tax fraud scheme. Perhaps his greatest service to the community was passing away before he could do even more harm. Every member of the King County Council was made aware of the federal tax fraud scheme, but refused to examine the evidence and stand up for the truth and the law. Each of these politicians furthered their political careers by ignoring their duty to uphold the law and failing to stand up for the rights of their constituents. Ron Sims, Gary Locke, former King County Sheriff Dave Reichert, former King County Councilmen Rob McKenna, and Greg Nickels participated in the ELS tax fraud scheme, but have never been held responsible, and have subsequently advanced to higher offices where they could do even more harm to the people of King Country.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View a list of active participants in the tax fraud scheme who held positions of leadership in King County.

    Prosecute the Prosecutor:

         Norm Maleng and members of his civil staff actively participated in this crime. When I "blew the whistle" on their criminal activity, they attacked me with lies and threats. The corrupt members of the prosecutor's office must be prosecuted. This will require a major reorganization of the prosecutor's office. These folks need to go to prison for what they have done.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I was saddened to learn of Norm Maleng's death in May 2007. Maleng had intentionally violated my rights and used his henchmen to attack me in court. I wanted to hold him responsible for his crimes. Not only did I want Maleng to be put in a position to defend his participation in the ELS tax fraud, but I wanted Maleng to publicly suffer the shame for what he had done. That opportunity ended with his death. With Maleng gone, the crooked lawyers who worked for him in his civil division continue on in the Prosecutor's office. Maleng's Chief of Staff, Dan Satterberg, has now become the King County Prosecutor. I assume that these characterless lawyers will lay the blame on their former boss if they are ever prosecuted for their participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. With Maleng dead, he will be in no position to "point the finger" back at them. Maleng's death is a gift for them.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View a description of Norm Maleng's active participation in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

      View a partial list of King County prosecutors who participated in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

The Press:

    Demand an Explanation from The Seattle Times:

         The Seattle Times and King County Journal newspapers hid the ELS federal tax fraud scheme by refusing to report the crime to the public. Since the tax fraud scheme involved the leadership of the County and corruption in the courts, the newspapers had an obligation to investigate and report the crime to their readers. Freedom of the press comes with the responsibility to report corruption, not the privilege to dodge responsibility for dishonest and deficient reporting. Both of these newspapers were repeatedly advised of the corruption involved in the establishment of ELST and refused to investigate or report the facts. The Seattle Times must explain why it chose to ignore these issues. (The King County Journal ceased operation in early 2007.)
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand how the press participated in the federal tax fraud scheme.

      View my August 30, 2009 public letter to The Seattle Times.



    Contact Information:

         This website is a one-man operation. Therefore, I have limited ability to respond to public comment. On the other hand, I am dedicated to publish the truth and am open to corrections and suggestions. Please use the following hyperlink for contact information.

      About this Website, and Contact Information