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
(How the Community of Seattle and King County, Washington,
Stole Land from its Neighbors to Build a Recreational Trail.)

by John Rasmussen

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



Overview:

My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions in this Overview are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.

         While this website deals mostly with the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, a more important issue becomes apparent as one studies and understands the facts which are presented here. The more important issue is the fact that Washington State and Federal Ninth Circuit judges committed criminal acts from the bench in order to cover-up that tax fraud scheme. The more important issue is that judges are now doing more than illegally expressing their political beliefs from the bench. Judges are actually committing crimes in order to support their political agendas.

         My name is John Rasmussen. I believe that trails are very important to a community. Trails provide access to recreation and exercise, and to a place where folks can go to relax and find a certain peace. I support the legal establishment of trails, but that is not what happened with the East Lake Sammamish trail. The issues I discuss here are about intentional criminal acts committed by politicians, judges, and others in order to destroy the rights of a few for the "benefit" of the community. It wasn't necessary to defraud the landowners of the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way in order to establish the ELS trail. It was just easier for the crooked politicians, lawyers, and judges who did it. It was easier for these dishonest people to steal the land than to deal honestly with those whose land they stole.

         The ELS federal tax fraud occurred in the late 1990's when King County accepted the phony tax donation of the land under the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng knew that BNSF didn't own the land, but Maleng advised the County's leadership to accept the fraudulent donation. The leadership of King County accepted the "donation". That's tax fraud which should have put Norm Maleng and the leadership of King County in prison. In order to hide its criminal act, King County repeatedly lied in its press releases, and Maleng lied in his briefings to the courts. Maleng's lies would be entertaining if they had not done so much damage to the rights of people he was supposed to serve. Since legal precedent, the basis of common law, was so poisonous to Maleng's actions, Norm Maleng made up a new legal precedent in order to justify his crime. Crooked lawyers do this all the time, but they usually don't get judges to adopt their lies. That happened with the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

         King County's crime enabled BNSF to take a $40 million illegal tax write-off, and enabled King County to falsely claim ownership of the land underlying the ELS right-of-way. The actual owners of the land under the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way have been defrauded out of millions of dollars of land value. These landowners not only lost the value of their property, but also must now deal with arrogant King County bureaucrats issuing orders about the use of their land which the County stole from them. These landowners will be charged fees for their use of their stolen land for years to come.

         As I wrote above, the most significant crime happened in the courts. Judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws, but that isn't what happened with the East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme. This crime has been covered-up by Federal Ninth Circuit and Washington State judges for a number of years. Then, in 2011 and 2012 U.S. Federal Court of Claims Judge Marian Horn exposed the dishonesty of the prior legal opinions with two opinions finding a number of East Lake Sammamish right-of-way deeds granted easements. This includes the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E). The theft of my neighbor's and my land, based on the earlier misconstruing of the Hilchkanum deed, is a focus of this website.

         A good example of the criminal acts committed by the judges is the legal opinion of Federal District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein in King County v. Rasmussen (2001). King County requested, and Rothstein allowed, summary judgment. Summary judgment is allowed only when the parties agree to the material facts. There was no agreement, yet this unethical federal judge granted to herself the power of summary judgment. She then struck legitimate material facts which supported our legal arguments. She cherry-picked other material facts, using the ones she liked and ignoring the ones which disproved her dishonest analysis. In addition, Rothstein actually made up other facts. These dishonest acts were used to justify her pre-determined outcome of my lawsuit. Judge Rothstein refused to acknowledge well understood legal precedent, which is the principal source of the property law which applied. Instead, Rothstein adopted King County's argument that there had recently been a "sea change" in the law construing railroad right-of-way deeds. She adopted King County's claim that one hundred years of well understood, and consistently upheld, legal precedent had been abandoned and replaced with King County's bizarre and dishonest interpretation of Brown v. State of Washington (1996). In her opinion, Rothstein agreed with King County's claim that this "new" railroad right-of-way law granted all the land under the East Lake Sammamish BNSF right-of-way to King County. Rothstein struck all the evidence of the tax fraud scheme. There were no oral arguments, and of course, no trial by a jury. Juries resolve questions of fact in our legal system, and Rothstein couldn't allow a jury to resolve the dishonest and undocumented facts she used to justify her decision. Federal Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein should be in prison for the crimes she committed against my family and many other innocent families along East Lake Sammamish.

         I "blew the whistle" on "The East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme" with my email to King County Executive Ron Sims and the King County Council on February 7, 2000. The issues and proposed solutions are discussed on this page. The issues are not complicated, but are extensive and heavily documented. An outline menu of the issues is presented next. I encourage the reader to glance through it first in order to understand how the issues are organized and presented. I believe that an examination of the documents, legal opinions, facts, and discussion presented here forces a person to conclude that Federal and State judges intentionally suspended the constitutional right of due process, intentionally subverted the law, and intentionally manipulated the facts in order to cover-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. This includes the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court.

    My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions in this Overview 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 Washington State Supreme Court has refused to review Ray v. King County Three Times.

    * Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn essentially reversed the prior Hilchkanum Opinions.

    * Understand what a Jury would have Considered if the Disputed Material Facts had Properly been Resolved.

      * How a Deed is Construed under Washington State Common Law.

      * What Material Facts were Illegally Resolved by the Hilchkanum Judges?

      * What "Circumstances Surrounding" the Hilchkanum Deed's Execution Explain the Intentions of the Parties?

        * "Circumstance Surrounding": Who authored the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed?

        * "Circumstance Surrounding": Did David Denny advise the Hilchkanums?

      * What "Subsequent Conduct of the Parties" Explains the Intentions of the Hilchkanums?

      * Are these Judges Idiots or Crooks?

    * The Role of King County in the ELS Tax Fraud Scheme.

    * The Press in King County has Refused to Report the ELS Federal Tax Fraud Scheme.

    * The Participation of The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy in the ELS Federal Tax Fraud Scheme.

    * Summary: The East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme was Covered-up by a Number of People.


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.

         In 1998, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng had previously been involved in two lawsuits which involved the question of whether 1887 Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (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 legal decisions which involved "about" thirteen SLS&E right-of-way deeds. These two decisions are: Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990). All of the SLS&E deeds in Lawson and Squire were determined to be easements. In Lawson, the King County Prosecutor agreed that all the deeds conveyed right-of-way easements. In Squire, the court decided the deed conveyed an easement. Yet, Maleng claimed that all of the SLS&E deeds under the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way granted fee simple title of the land. Since he had advised the County to accept all of this land as a tax write-off gift from BNSF, Norm Maleng need this lie to protect himself from federal tax fraud prosecution. But Maleng had a big problem. His problem was that deeds which were presented in Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990) are materially identical to a number of 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. 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? I wrote above that I would present facts. The following deeds show the fact that East Lake Sammamish SLS&E deeds have identical granting language to deeds which had previously been determined to be easements in Lawson and Squire. 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.
        (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 Berres v. US (2012).

      "...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 Berres v. US (2012).

      "...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 Berres v. US (2012).

      "...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 Berres v. US (2012).

      "...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.
          Determined an EASEMENT in Berres v. US (2012), Determined FEE SIMPLE in King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and Ray v. King County (2004).

         This website deals with the construing, and misconstruing, of the May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. As I write this paragraph in 2013, 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 Deed.

    Here are the published Hilchkanum opinions which I've been able to obtain (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 right-of-way. The judges of the 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 the 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. This issue is discussed in greater detail below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


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

         As explained above, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng knew that he was accepting fraudulently donated land when King County accepted the BNSF 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, 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. Norm Maleng manufactured new legal precedent.
        (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 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, was identical to a number of East Lake Sammamish right-of-way deeds to the SLS&E, Norm Maleng needed to find some other opinion which he could misconstrue to hide his participation in the "The East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme". There was only one choice for Norm, 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. In common law, the newer 1996 Brown opinion would take precedent over the 1986 Supreme Court Lawson opinion, and the Squire opinion (which was both older and from the lower Division One Court of Appeals). 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 Form 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 and directly granted a "right of way" in the granting clause. This language had always been construed to grant an easement in Washington State. 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 seen as "Rules" by the courts. God forbid that the people of Washington State have rules (laws) to live by, when judges want to have as much latitude as possible. 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 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 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 Constitution and the law. 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 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 below.
        (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 about fourteen parties (or about 20% of the parties who could have filed claims). For the parties who did not file taking claims, their property rights seem to be 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 the underlying land. This is what happens when we have crooked judges in our legal system, and a United States Supreme Court that does nothing about the dishonesty in the lower courts, and cannot take all the appeals. Legal limbo!
        (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 named them the "Hilchkanum Opinions"
        (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.

         It's hard to decide which is the most dishonest statement made in Ray v. King County (2004). My vote goes to Cox' conclusion that the notary public, who apparently merely copied the Hilchkanum deed into the King County record, was the author of the Hilchkanum deed. Based on this lie, 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. 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.


    The Washington State Supreme Court has refused to review Ray v. King County three times. This refusal has covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

         After my neighbors, Gerald and Kathryn Ray, lost in King County Superior Court, they appealed directly to the Washington State Supreme Court (WSSC). The WSSC declined, forcing the Rays to take their appeal to Washington State Appeals Court, Division One. Division One Chief Judge Ronald E. Cox issued the dishonest opinion, Ray v. King County (2004), which I discussed above. 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 to stand. Unsatisfied, the Rays took a takings claim to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Rays were denied their right to claim the Hilchkanum deed granted an easement by Court of Federal Claims Judge Marion Blank Horn, based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue). But, "about fourteen" other parties, basing their claim on the fact that the Hilchkanum deed granted an easement, were allowed to proceed with their claims. Judge Horn had the right to apply collateral estoppel to the "about fourteen" other parties because the only significant issue was whether the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of way deed granted an easement or a fee simple interest to the SLS&E. As shown above, that issue had already been "resolved" in federal and Washington State courts. My lawsuit was appealed all the way to SCOTUS. The Ray's lawsuit had been appealed to the WSSC, twice. Yet, Judge Horn found a "distinction without a difference" and construed the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed herself, as explained in more detail below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

         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). For a third time the WSSC refused to justify the prior Hilchkanum opinions. Use the following link to read Judge Horn's description of the questions to the WSSC, and the WSSC refusal to reply. Go to pages 9 and 10 in the link below to find this discussion.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read Beres v. United States (2010) to understand the WSSC refused to justify the prior Hilchkanum opinions.

         So, the Washington State Supreme Court refused to justify the prior Hilchkanum opinions three times. This refusal by the WSSC 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.)


Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn Found the Hilchkanum Right-Of-Way Deed Granted an Easement. This Essentially Reversed the Prior Hilchkanum Opinions.

         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. In Beres v. United States (2010) Judge Horn decided that "about fourteen" parties, making taking claims based on the Hilchkanum deed, could proceed with their claims. Then in Beres v. United States (2011) and Beres v. United States (2012) Judge Horn carefully and honestly applied the facts and the law to the construing of the Hilchkanum deed, finding it an easement.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I've complained that the prior Hilchkanum opinions were decided using summary judgment in violation of the rules. From reading her opinions, I wonder if Judge Horn did the same in Beres v. United States. I do not have the briefs to understand if both parties agreed with the material facts Judge Horn used to resolve Beres v. United States.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


Understand what a jury would have considered if the disputed material facts had properly been resolved.


    How a Deed is Construed under Washington State Common Law.

         There are two basic elements in construing a deed in Washington State: the facts and the law. In our courts, the correct application of the law is the responsibility of the judge. If there is no disagreement with the facts, and on a motion by one of the parties, the judge may use summary judgment to apply the undisputed facts to the law, and issue a judgment. But, under the rules of summary judgment, disputed material facts are required to be resolved by a jury.

         What are the rules to construe a railroad deed? Under Washington State law,"...when construing a deed, the intent of the parties is of paramount importance and the court's duty to ascertain and enforce." That means the court should enforce the intent of the original parties to the deed. The parties to the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E were the Hilchkanums and the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E). "It is a factual question to determine the intent of the parties." The "...intent of the parties must primarily be gathered from a fair consideration of the deed..." In considering the deed, "...some meaning should be given to every word, clause and expression, if it can reasonably be done and if it is not inconsistent with the general intent of the whole instrument...", but more than the deed is considered in determining the intentions of the parties. In addition, extrinsic evidence consisting of "...the circumstances surrounding [the deed's] execution, and the subsequent conduct of the parties..." is also considered in construing a deed. (Each quote in this paragraph is a hyperlinked citation which will take the reader to the citation's location in its opinion.)

         Prior to the Court of Federal Claims, all of the Hilchkanum judges illegally resolved questions of material fact and issued opinions in violation of the rules of summary judgment. Denying the requirement for a jury to resolve issues of material fact is a violation of the Fifth Amendment right of due process by judges. I make this statement about the opinions of Federal District Judge Rothstein, Federal Ninth Circuit Appeals Panel Judges Fletcher, Gould and Murguia, and Washington State Appeals Court, Division One, Judges Cox and Schindler. Because of this violation of the Constitution and the dishonesty in essentially every paragraph of their opinions, I accuse these judges of committing criminal acts from the bench. But, I am also suspicious of Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn. While I believe that she came to the same conclusion a jury would have, had a jury been used in the resolution of disputed material facts, I wonder if Judge Horn also resolved material facts in violation of the rules of summary judgment. I would need the briefs to answer that question.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


    What Material Facts were Illegally Resolved by the Hilchkanum Judges?

         As I explained above, the central fact in construing a deed is to determine the intention of the parties. The deed itself, the circumstances surrounding the deed's execution, and the subsequent conduct of the parties are contributing facts in determining the parties intentions. It makes sense that judges should resolve the legal meaning of the deed. Common law has established the rules to construe the words, phrases, and the deed considered as a whole. So, it seems proper to me that judges resolve that aspect of the parties intentions. But, the circumstances surrounding the deed's execution and the subsequent conduct of the parties are unique to each deed. When there is disagreement by the parties to their accuracy and effect, the various facts which contribute to that determination must be resolved by a jury. Otherwise, judges can control the whole process, and we get criminal acts like King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and
    Ray v. King County (2004). (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         While judges have the right to construe a deed based on common law precedent, what right do judges have to resolve the material fact of the circumstances surrounding the deed's execution or the material fact of the subsequent conduct of the parties? In my opinion, none. So, below I list some of the circumstances surrounding the Hilchkanum deed's execution, and subsequent conduct of the parties to the Hilchkanum deed. In legitimate courts of law, these disputed material facts would have been resolved by a jury of the People. Not by the judges. This violation of the Constitutional right of due process resulted in the Hilchkanum decisions. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


    What "Circumstances Surrounding" the Hilchkanum Deed's Execution Explain the Intentions of the Parties?


      "Circumstance Surrounding": Who authored the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed?

           In common law, a deed is construed against its author. Authorship in an important material fact in the determination of easement-or-fee in a railroad deed. Authorship is a "circumstance surrounding the deed's execution".

             "Initially, it should be noted that contract language subject to interpretation is construed most strongly against the party who drafted it, or whose attorney prepared it. Underwood v. Sterner, supra; Wise v. Farden, 53 Wn.2d 162, 332 P.2d 454 (1958); Restatement, Contracts SS 236 (d) (1932)."
            Guy Stickney, Inc. v. Underwood (1966) (Citation highlighted on page three)

           So, who authored the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E? Below are six opinions, written by five different judges. Two judges decided that the SLS&E Railway lawyers wrote the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. Two other judges decided the deed was written by the Hilchkanums. One judge decided that Notary Public, B.J. Tallman wrote the deed. Authorship is a material fact that is required to be resolved by a jury when their is not agreement by the parties. With the exception of Judge Horn, all of the Hilchkanum judges resolved this question of material fact in violation of the rules of summary judgment. I don't have the briefs to understand if Judge Horn committed the same illegal act from the bench. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn found that the Hilchkanum deed was authored by the SLS&E Railway.

          Open Beres v. United States (2011) at page 59 to understand this finding.

          Open Beres v. United States (2012) at page 27 to understand this finding.

        Ninth Circuit District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein found that the Hilchkanum deed was authored by the Hilchkanums. The Hilchkanums were illiterate Native Americans who signed their deed to the SLS&E with an "X".

          Open King County v. Rasmussen 2001 at page 6 to understand Rothstein claimed that "the Hilchkanums chose [the term 'right of way' in their deed's granting clause] out of necessity rather than a desire to create an easement". With that statement, Rothstein identifies the Hilchkanums as author of the most critical words in the granting clause of their right-of-way deed. Rothstein makes that determination of material fact without any documentation, and by ignoring documents we provided which show her conclusion to be dishonest. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher found that the Hilchkanum deed was authored by the Hilchkanums, with the help of unnamed friends. She ignored documents we cited which would invalidate her finding. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Open King County v. Rasmussen 2002 at page 13, Footnote 13. Fletcher states "There is no evidence that his friends did not assist him with the transaction with the Railway such that he understood the deedís language and could reflect his intent therein." Not only does Fletcher decide the material fact that Hilchkanum wrote his deed, but she ignores the fact that David Denny was the white man who helped him with legal documents at that time and signed the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed as a witness. Denny was one of the thirteen owners of the SLS&E Railway.
              (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Washington State Appeals Court, Division One, Chief Judge Ronald E. Cox found the Hilchkanum deed was authored by B.J. Tallman, the Notary Public for the signing and filing of the deed. Based on that ridiculous conclusion, Cox construed the words of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed against the Hilchkanums.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Open Ray v. King County (2004) at page 10. Here, Cox states "...examination of the deed shows that it is entirely handwritten, apparently by the same person. Both the language of the main part of the deed, as well as the acknowledgment, is in the handwriting of the notary who acknowledged the signatures of the Hilchkanums, B.J. Tallman.66 Nothing in the record before us indicates that [B.J.Tallman] was the agent of the Railway. Absent such proof, we fail to see why we should construe ambiguities in the May 1887 deed against the Railway. Rather, ..., we would construe the deed against the Hilchkanums, the grantors."

        Washington State Appeals Court, Division One, Judge William W. Baker found that the Hilchkanum deed was authored by the SLS&E Railway in his Ray Dissenting opinion. He observed that Judge Cox' conclusion that B.J. Tallman authored the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was incorrect.

          Open Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting) at page 2. On page 2 Judge Baker writes "...contrary to the majority's conclusion, the evidence establishes that the handwritten deed was drafted by the railroad, and must therefore be construed against it. As King County concedes, Hilchkanum did not write the deed. Extrinsic evidence also supports concluding that the deed must be construed against the railroad. The language contained in the handwritten deed is identical to language used on preprinted forms produced by the railroad. Hilchkanum's attorney, who signed as a witness, was an owner of the railroad." Baker describes David T. Denny, who signed as a witness to the right-of-way deed, as the Hilchkanum's attorney.

           Above, I describe the dishonest conclusions of fact which Rothstein, Fletcher and Cox used to support their dishonest opinions. Who authored the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed is an important circumstance surrounding the deed's execution. In real courts of law, juries resolve that issue when there is disagreement.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read a study relating to Hilchkanum's participation and intentions with his deeds.

      What would a jury consider to determine authorship?

           The Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was an unaltered version of a form deed written by the SLS&E lawyers. That's what railroads did in order to establish their rights-of-way. Once the railroad company was chartered to establish its tracks, the lawyers wrote a sample deed which was taken to the landowners for signing. Some landowners made changes, but on East Lake Sammamish, all of the Native Americans signed the SLS&E form deed without any modification. This is explained in the following link. In real courts of law this evidence would have been presented to a jury for determination of the material fact of authorship.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        A comparison of Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway deeds establishes the "Form Deed" used to establish the Railway and identifies the author of that "Form Deed".

           The following is another other example of a disputed circumstance surrounding the Hilchkanum deed's execution.


      "Circumstance Surrounding": Did David Denny advise the Hilchkanums?

           The Hilchkanums were illiterate Native Americans who needed help with their deeds and other legal matters. The person who advised the Hilchkanums at the time of their 1887 right-of-way deed to the SLS&E was David Denny, a prominent Seattle businessman. Further, David Denny signed as a witness to the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. View a photocopy of the recorded deed to understand that fact.

        May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.

           Understand that documents were supplied to the Hilchkanum judges which showed Hilchkanum's dependence on Denny for legal advice. View the following document associated with Hilchkanum's Homestead application.

        Denny Declaration re Late Proof of Homesteading.

           But, there was a conflict of interest involved in Denny's advice with the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. David Denny was one of the thirteen owners of the SLS&E. This "circumstance surrounding" the execution of the Hilchkanum deed should have been considered and given weight by a jury, since several of the Hilchkanum judges construed the deed against the illiterate Hilchkanums.

           In King County v. Rasmussen (2002), my lawyer briefed Judge Fletcher on the question of what unbiased legal advice was available to the Hilchkanums with their acceptance of 1887 right-of-way deed. Under the rules of summary judgment, all facts and inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. As the non-moving party in King County v. Rasmussen (2002), Judge Fletcher was required to hold the above facts about Denny's participation in the deed against King County. Instead of doing that, Fletcher modified the facts in order to support King County's claim. In her dishonest opinion, Fletcher stated that "...the evidence indicates that Hilchkanum relied on friends in transacting his business. With the help of his friends, he was able to comply with the Homestead Act and make numerous conveyances of property. There is no evidence that his friends did not assist him with the transaction with the Railway such that he understood the deedís language and could reflect his intent therein." Open the following link and go to PDF page 13 to read the above citation in footnote 13. It appears that crooked judges and lawyers like to hide their most dishonest statements in the footnotes.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Open King County v. Rasmussen (2002) and go to page 13.

           In Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting), Judge Baker acknowledges that the Washington State Court of Appeals was briefed by the Ray's attorney that David Denny advised the Hilchkanums. Judge Baker protested the majority opinion and observed that Denny served as the Hilchkanum's "attorney". On PDF page 2 of his dissenting opinion, linked below, Judge Baker writes: "Hilchkanum's attorney, who signed as a witness, was an owner of the railroad." Further, Baker states on PDF page 3 that the Rays were the nonmoving party in the lawsuit. In real courts of law the fact that Denny had a conflict of interest in his advice to the Hilchkanums would have been used against King County.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Open Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting) at page 2 to verify the above facts.

           Judges Rothstein and Fletcher assumed the ridiculous fact that the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was authored by the Hilchkanums. Judges Cox and Schindler decided the notary public who aided in filing the deed was the author, then construed the words of the deed against the Hilchkanums. Since the Hilchkanums were illiterate Native Americans, the judges should have considered who helped them with the deed. Documents provided to the courts show that David Denny assisted the Hilchkanums with legal matters at that time. As stated above, David Denny was one of the owners of the SLS&E. It was dishonest for the judges to construe the words of the right-of-way deed against the Hilchkanums, if their personal "attorney" was an owner of the Railway. How these facts contribute to the material fact of the Hilchkanum's intentions should have been resolved by a jury. No legitimate jury would have come to the conclusions of fact which the Hilchkanum judges made. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


    What "Subsequent conduct of the parties" Explains the Intentions of the Hilchkanums?

         The King County Prosecutor accepted a phony tax donation of all the land under the ELS right-of-way with the knowledge that most, if not all, of the deeds granted easements. The Prosecutor was participating in a federal tax fraud scheme with that act. One of his arguments to hide his crime was that the Hilchkanums excepted the right-of-way in their subsequent real estate deeds. He then claimed the exception of a right-of-way in a deed is an exception of the land under the right-of-way. He concluded that this exception of land indicated that the Hilchkanums understood that they had granted fee simple with their right-of-way deed. Of course this is just another lie by the King County Prosecutor's office. None of the subsequent real estate deeds in the chain of title of my land included this exception. Maleng used deeds that were not directly relevant to my lawsuit. Further, the exception of a right-of-way in a subsequent deed does not except the land under that right-of-way. These were just lies, built on lies, by a very crooked King County Prosecutor and his staff. Norm Maleng, the King County Prosecutor, needed to make this dishonest argument in order to protect himself and his staff from going to prison for their participation in the crime. That makes sense. What justifies the federal and State judges who adopted his very dishonest argument?
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         As I explained earlier, the central fact in construing a deed is to determine the intention of the parties. The deed itself, the circumstances surrounding the deed's execution, and the subsequent conduct of the parties are contributing facts in determining the parties intentions. Above, I discussed two examples of "circumstances surrounding" the execution of Hilchkanum's right-of-way deed. Here, we look at just one of the "Subsequent conduct of the parties" in the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. The issue discussed here is the exception of the right-of-way in Hilchkanum's subsequent real estate deeds, and how that signals their intentions in their 1887 right-of-way grant to the SLS&E. In some of the Hilchkanum's subsequent real estate deeds, they excepted the railroad right-of-way. In other Hilchkanum subsequent real estate deeds, the Hilchkanums transferred their land without any exception of the right-of-way. The Hilchkanum judges cherry picked these deeds in their opinions, basing their opinions on a deed which was not in the chain of title of the lawsuit, and ignoring a more relevant deed which contradicted their dishonest conclusions. Why would judges do this? I believe there is an arrogant disregard for the law in our courts, and I justify that belief in this website. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Here are two deeds which the King County Prosecutor, and some of the Hilchkanum judges, found to except the land under the Hilchkanum right-of-way. These deeds were not in the chain of title for either of the King County Hilchkanum opinions, but the Prosecutor needed to "find" the intentions of the Hilchkanums in their 1887 right-of-way deed in this subsequent deed in order to cover-up his participation in the federal tax fraud scheme.
        My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of MY OPINION.

      King County Deputy Prosecutor Scott Johnson Exhibit 5-2 (Quit Claim deed Annie Hilchkanum to Bill Hilchkanum, August 25, 1899)

      King County Deputy Prosecutor Scott Johnson Exhibit 5-1 (Warranty Deed Bill Hilchkanum to Chris Nelson, February 27, 1904)

         These two deeds deal mostly with Government Lot 1, and none of the land involved in the Hilchkanum opinions is on Government Lot 1. The Hilchkanum judges ignored our exhibits and instead concentrated on land that was not in the chain of title of their lawsuits. The deed which should have been most significant for Judge Rothstein to consider was the Hilchkanum warranty deed to Chris Nelson, March 15, 1904, which conveyed Government Lot 2 and comprised 96% of the contested land in King County v. Rasmussen. So, why did Federal Judges Rothstein and Fletcher analyze a deed to Chris Nelson for Government Lot 1, and ignore the deed to Chris Nelson for Government Lot 2? It would appear they did this because that Hilchkanum warranty deed to Chris Nelson, March 15, 1904, for Government Lot 2, did not except the right-of-way. Instead, they considered the less relevant Hilchkanum warranty deed to Chris Nelson, February 27, 1904 for Government Lot 1, which did except the right-of-way. They then dishonestly stated/implied in that all the Hilchkanum subsequent real estate deeds excepted the right-of-way land. this same dishonesty was exhibited by Judges Cox and Schindler in Ray v. King County.
        My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of MY OPINION.

      What is the Meaning of the Exception of a Railroad Right-of-Way in a Deed?

    Are these Judges Idiots or Crooks?

         When the Hilchkanums conveyed their land to other parties without an exception for the land under the right-of-way, they conveyed the right-of-way land in those subsequent real estate deeds. If one agrees with the dishonest conclusions in King County v. Rasmussen (2002) and Ray v. King County (2004) that the Hilchkanums granted fee simple title in their 1887 right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, then they cannot later sell that same land to other parties. Judge Fletcher stated that the Hilchkanum warranty deed to Chris Nelson, March 15, 1904, which did not except the right-of-way, was " not significantly probative". How many times does Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher think a person can convey the same real estate to different parties? Is she an idiot or a crook to dismiss a deed, which destroys her dishonest argument, as "not significantly probative". In Ray v. King County (2004), Judge Cox comes to the same dishonest conclusion. Cox finds that a subsequent Hilchkanum real estate deed which did not except the land under the right-of-way "is not probative of the grantors' intent in the 1887 deed". How many times does Washington State Division One Chief Judge Cox think a person can convey the same real estate to different parties? Does this judge have any concept of property ownership?
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


The Role of King County in the ELS Tax Fraud Scheme:

         While evidence supports the fact that the King County Prosecutor, activist lawyers, BNSF, and Arthur Andersen designed and executed the federal tax fraud scheme, there were many other powerful members of the King County community involved in the crime. I informed the King County Executive and County Council of the crime. All of these "public servants" ignored my notification. I supplied a Federal Prosecutor with evidence of the tax fraud scheme. Instead of prosecuting Norm Maleng, he ignored the crime. A few years later, Norm Maleng proposed that this Federal Prosecutor be promoted to U.S. Attorney. Isn't this suspicious? The most troubling participants were the judges who actively covered-up the scheme with their criminal acts from the bench. The large number of participants combined to commit a perfect crime to "benefit" the King County community. I call it "Theft by Community".    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand "Theft by Community" and who participated in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.


The Press in King County has refused to report the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

         There is little doubt that the American public has a nagging suspicion of our legal system. Perhaps this is why we run "parallel trials" in the press. By "parallel trials", I mean that the press presents the facts of the case and significant testimony to the public and then uses expert guests and opinion polls to come to a "decision" that is parallel to the decision of the jury. These parallel trials in the press must begin to focus on the dishonesty in our judiciary. Exposure by the press is the only effective restriction on the illegitimate powers that state and federal judges have granted to themselves. This gives power to the press to become the only "Court of Appeal" for a public that is powerless in its own courts.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I contacted The Seattle Times and the King County Journal a number of times about the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. Both refused to investigate and report the crime. This is ironic because The Seattle Times has published a series about freedom of the press called "The Democracy Papers". It appears to me that The Seattle Times does not understand that freedom of the press is about the responsibility to report abuse in government, not about the privilege to be protected from claims of biased or sloppy reporting.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand how the Press in King County, Washington, participated in the federal tax fraud scheme.

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


The Participation of The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy in the ELS Federal Tax Fraud Scheme:

         The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy is the national organization which promotes railbanking. Two activist lawyers, associated with The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, took part in the federal tax fraud scheme used to establish the East Lake Sammamish Trail. Charles Montange acted as lawyer for The Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County (TLC) in the sale from BNSF to TLC to King County. Peter Goldman was an ever-present activist in the establishment of the trail and was associated with TLC. Considering the tax fraud scheme used to establish the ELST and the participation of these two lawyers connected with the Conservancy, one must suspect that similar fraud has been used elsewhere in the 13,000 miles of railbanked trails in the U.S.A. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Does the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy act criminally in establishing trails?

      Understand the dishonesty of the Rails-to-Trails Act.


Summary: A crime was committed by the leadership of King County, Washington. This crime was covered-up by federal and State judges, and others. The press in King County has refused to report this crime to the public.

     Prior to the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng had lost two lawsuits which involved the easement-or-fee question in SLS&E right-of-way deeds. In spite of deeds along East Lake Sammamish containing identical language to the deeds which were earlier determined to be easements in Lawson and Squire, Maleng claimed that all the ELS deeds granted fee simple title. The Prosecutor made this claim to cover-up the County's illegal acceptance of the ELS right-of-way land as a "gift" from BNSF. In order to hide his crime, Maleng and his staff concocted a phony legal argument. I call his argument Norm Maleng's "legal theory". Central to his argument is the claim that the Washington State Supreme Court dramatically changed the rules to construe railroad right-of-way deeds in Brown v. State of Washington (1996). Of course this is a ridiculous lie.
    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions in the above paragraph are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

     Despite of the obvious dishonesty of the King County Prosecutor's argument, federal and State judges issued opinions which covered-up King County's crime. I describe these Hilchkanum opinions as criminal acts from the bench. But, apparently King County's influence does not reach as far as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Blank Horn has issued two opinions finding seven ELS right-of-way deeds to be easements. This includes the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, which is the main subject of this website. All of the ELS deeds Judge Horn considered were determined to be easements.
    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions in the above paragraph are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

     I first "blew the whistle" on the ELS tax fraud scheme with my letter to the King County leadership on February 7, 2000. The leadership ignored the letter. I followed up with letters to congressmen, a federal prosecutor, the IRS, and the King County newspapers, to name a few. The Seattle Times has refused to investigate and report this crime. Apparently the Times sees the First Amendment Freedom of the Press as its right to ignore corruption in government.
    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions in the above paragraph are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


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.

      My suggestion for citizen action against the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

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.

    Impeach:

         The solution for these criminal actions is to impeach the federal and state judges responsible for the crimes described here. Sadly, this is a long list. In the decisions that I describe on this site, the judges have actively participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. This criminal activity by judges has to stop if our nation is to survive, and if we are to provide opportunities for our children and grandchildren. Impeachment is the only solution for the judges who have committed these crimes. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View my suggestion to impeach the judges who participated in the ELS tax fraud scheme.

    When a Judge is Impeached, the Judge's Clerks must be put on Trial, too:

         Crooked Judges are training their clerks to accept the inevitability of criminal acts committed by the judges from the bench. Clerks are being taught that criminal acts committed from the bench are okay. This must stop! Since clerks are usually involved in every aspect of a case, they become accomplices when crimes are committed by their judges. Clerks are simply crooked judges in training. When a crooked judge is impeached, the judge's clerk must be put on trial, too. To protect honest clerks, we need to set up a method for them to protect themselves and their careers when they blow the whistle on judicial misconduct. Law schools need to establish courses to prepare and inform future clerks. Clerks should work out of a clerk pool, and not be permanently assigned to an individual judge. This will discourage judges from drawing their clerks into criminal activity. This will give more independence to the clerks and make them less vulnerable to corruption from the judges.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    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.

         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.

    Judges Allow Lawyers to Freely Lie in Court. This Must Stop:

         The concept of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" has become a joke in our courts. Lawyers freely lie in court, and coach their clients to lie. This happens because there is little or no chance that they will be disciplined. It seems that this happens with lawyers who are honest and honorable in their dealings with people outside of court, but have a different moral character in court. This happened to me in King County Superior court on September 14, 2000. Senior King County Deputy Prosecutor Howard Schneiderman stated unsubstantiated lies about me and presented perjurious declarations in order to harm me and obtain a preliminary injunction against me. King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley acknowledged that he had reviewed my declaration and other evidence of King County's criminal activity, but he ignored the evidence and refused to question the obvious lies of the prosecuting attorney. We must demand that honesty and the truth be reestablished in our courts.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read an annotated transcript of the ridiculous Preliminary Injunction Hearing, September 14, 2000

    Reestablish the Balance between the Branches of Government:

         The judiciary has changed the constitutional relationship between the branches of government. It has increased its powers in order to support the inflated egos and twisted agendas of its members. Too many in the judiciary no longer believe in the Constitution and the laws, but rather believe in the unchecked power of their office. With this selfish and dishonest power grab, the judges take away the ability of our elected representatives to establish our laws and maintain our Constitution. If judges want to be activists or legislators, they must leave the court and join the legitimate activists in our political arenas. They must run for public office if they want to establish laws. Judges must stop the present practice of electing themselves to legislative positions and making laws from the bench.

      Is there treason in our courts?

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.

    Tax the People of Washington State for the Harm they Caused by Hiding Arthur Andersen's Crimes:

         The elected representatives and judges of King County have intentionally committed crimes in order to establish the East Lake Sammamish Trail. If these crimes had been prosecuted, the accounting firm Arthur Andersen would have been included, and possibly would not have later participated in the Enron or WorldCom scandals. The people of King County cannot be prosecuted for the crimes of their leaders, but they should be liable to reimburse those harmed by Arthur Andersen's subsequent corporate accounting fraud. With the subsequent participation of the Washington State Supreme Court in the ELS tax fraud scheme, perhaps all the people of Washington State should be liable for Arthur Andersen's later crimes.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand Arthur Andersen's participation 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.

    Cancel your Subscription to The Seattle Times:

         Why would anyone buy a newspaper that hides the truth of political corruption in its community?

    Don't buy advertising from The Seattle Times:

         If you are a business that advertises in The Seattle Times, and are outraged by the part The Seattle Times played in the federal ELS tax fraud scheme, then cancel you ads with The Seattle Times and take your advertising dollars elsewhere.

The Activists:

    Prosecute the Activists who Participated in the ELST Federal Tax Fraud:

         The activists lawyers who worked for TLC, the middleman in the fraudulent transaction, need to be prosecuted for their part in the crime. Committing a crime to establish a public bicycle trail is not an act that benefits a community. It is simply a criminal act. "The end does not justify the means." Activists must obey the same laws that the rest of us obey.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Investigate to determine if the Tax Fraud Scheme used to Establish the ELST is Common to Other Railbanked Trails:

         We need to investigate the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy lawyers and their dealings in other railbanking transactions. Since the former lead attorney for the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy was involved in the ELST tax fraud scheme, we need to know if tax fraud is business-as-usual at that organization and with the railroads which give up their unused rights-of-way to railbanking.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand that it is likely the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy acts criminally in the establishment of trails.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe:

    Investigate and Prosecute BNSF:

         BNSF needs to be investigated and prosecuted, if necessary, for tax fraud in the railbanking of its East Lake Sammamish spur line. Further, all of its other BNSF railbanking transactions should be investigated for similar fraud.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



    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