XXXX
XXXX
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 )
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

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

No. 00-2-14946-8 SEA

KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN RASMUSSEN, and NANCY RASMUSSEN, husband and wife, and their marital community Defendants.

DECLARATION OF JENNIFER KNAUER

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


    Note from John Rasmussen

    The purpose of this document:

           This is an annotated version of the slanderous declaration by East Lake Sammamish Trial Project Manager Jennifer Knauer in support of King County's motion for a preliminary injunction against me in its King County v. Rasmussen lawsuit. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View Jennifer Knauerís declaration, without my comments.

        View an annotated transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing to which this declaration was submitted.

    The background leading to this declaration:

           This declaration was concocted to mischaracterize me as some sort of criminal in order to place me at a disadvantage in my lawsuit with King County, and to threaten me with false prosecution. It was the King County Prosecutorís way of letting me know that it would be better if I kept quiet about the federal tax fraud scheme used to establish the East Lake Sammamish Trail. I "blew the whistle" on the tax fraud scheme in early 2000. King County's response was to "Lie, Stonewall, and Slander". Later, I expressed my intention to defend my land and rights with a shotgun unless the County stop its trespass on my property, or at least begin communicating with me. King County's response was the letter from Executive Ron Sims to me on August 24, 2000, threatening me with false felony prosecution, and the filing of this lawsuit. The County's willingness to manufacture evidence in order to hide its crimes and threaten its residents is made obvious in this annotated perjurious declaration by East Lake Sammamish Trial Project Manager Jennifer Knauer.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View a detailed explanation of the background which lead to this perjurious declaration.

    This declaration by Ms. Knauer is filled with identifiable lies and undocumented hearsay.

           As you read this perjurious declaration, you will notice that Ms. Knauer has a very sharp memory of vaguely remembered events. Apparently, her memory is an oxymoron. For example she claims she has a good memory of my early "threats" against her employees, but a conveniently vague memory about when she first became aware these "threats", who these "threats" were made against, what was the nature of these "threats", and exactly where these "threats" happened. Her memory is sharp when she recalls the fear she felt of me, but that same memory is weak when it comes to providing details which I could use to prove her a liar. Also, apparently she can't remember if she notified her superiors or the King County Sheriff about these illegal "threats", because she doesn't document, or even claim, she made those reports. In response to her lies, I identify the exact date we first met. I provide a copy of the complaint that I wrote to Ron Sims the following day. Further I provide documentation of her attempt to falsely arrest me, or one of my neighbors, a few days later. Jennifer Knauer's memory wasn't good enough to recall these significant events which should have been included in this declaration. Ms. Knauer's memory is a very fickle thing. More likely, she is simply a slanderous liar. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    This is one of two slanderous declarations against me.

           This perjurious declaration by Ms. Knauer is one of two declarations manufactured by the King County Prosecutor in order to mischaracterize me as a criminal. The other perjurious declaration was submitted by Shelly Marelli. It isnít a coincidence that both of these declarations against me were made by women who give the impression that they were cowering in "fear" of me. In 1999, Jennifer Knauer was a young woman who would have done a very nice job of falsely expressing fear to a jury in order to mischaracterize me as some sort of demon. Using female employees to falsely express a fear of me was an effective tactic by the King County Prosecutor. It was typical of the dishonesty I experienced from the Prosecutor throughout my lawsuit. It's obvious to me that Knauer's and Marelli's perjurious declarations came out of a "let's get John Rasmussen" session conducted by the King County Prosecutor. I believe this will be apparent to the reader by studying this annotated declaration, Ms. Marelli's perjurious declaration, the annotated transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing, a description of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, and the other documents linked in my notes below.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View an annotated version of Shelley Marelliís perjurious declaration.

        View an annotated transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing held by Judge Donald Haley.

        Read a detailed description of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

    Color Scheme:

          Ms. Knauer's declaration is in bold blue font. I have added my comments in black font, bracketed by horizontal reference lines, and indented as shown here.



Jennifer Knauer declares as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the matters contained herein and am competent to testify thereto.

2. From October 1998 through September 1999, I worked for the King County Parks System as the Project Manager for the East Lake Sammamish Trail project.

3. In that capacity, I participated in public meetings to inform the public about and also seek input on the planned East Lake Sammamish trail.

4. Early in my tenure as Project Manager, I became familiar with John and Nancy Rasmussen, and their property.

5. I do not recall the specific date when I first became familiar with John Rasmussen. However, I do recall that early in my tenure, I learned that John Rasmussen had threatened to use force to remove County employees from the corridor in the vicinity of his home.



    Note from John Rasmussen

    This is a lie by Ms. Knauer!

           This is an outrageous lie by this very dishonest King County Project Manager. It's perjury. Where is there any documentation of Knauer's claim that "...early in [her] tenure, [she] learned that John Rasmussen had threatened to use force to remove County employees from the corridor in the vicinity of his home"? Where is there named any specific person that she claims I "threatened"? Where is evidence of any report by Ms. Knauer to her superiors that I was making threats to her employees? Where is evidence of any report by Ms. Knauer to the King County Sheriff? There is none. Nobody is named because I never illegally threatened any King County employee. If Ms. Knauer was aware of any threats to her King County employees, she had a duty to report that to her superiors or the sheriff. If she had done that, there would be some evidence of that report and it would be included as an exhibit to this declaration. There is none. Her statement is an slanderous lie.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Here is the truth.

           The truth is that during the period Knauer describes as "early in my tenure" I simply notified trespassing County employees to not trespass, but I allowed them to cross my land. At that time, I believed they simply needed to get together with their supervisors and understand their right to be on the County's railroad easement. They needed to understand they had only an easement for railroad purposes, and no easement for a trail. Further, I never illegally threatened any County employee. If I had, King County would have prosecuted me. The County was eager to prosecute one of the landowners along the right-of-way in order to calm down the protest. However, falsely prosecuting a trailside resident, and losing, would have the opposite effect. That's the reason I wasn't prosecuted.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Ms. Knauer knew exactly when we first met.

           Contrary to Jennifer Knauer's clear and vivid memories of unnamed people on no"specific date[s]", I can document exactly when Ms. Knauer and I first crossed paths. I first met Jennifer at a public meeting on April 8, 1999. Ms. Knauer was holding the meeting as Project Manager for the East Lake Sammamish Trail project. My wife, Nancy, and I attended, along with other concerned neighbors who were having their land stolen by King County in order to build the ELS trail. King County has the reputation of holding phony public meetings, pretending to seek public input, when the county has already determined its course. In that spirit, Ms. Knauer restricted comments by the public to two minutes, timed by a Parametrix representative using a stopwatch. Parametrix was a company that had provided service to King County for the trail and had been found to have acted unethically. Folks were cut off in mid-sentence when their time was up. From my perspective, Ms. Knauer had no interest in the publicís comments, just an interest in holding a meeting so she could claim she sought public input.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           At this meeting, Ms. Knauer introduced the Citizens Advisory Group (CAG), a group of King County citizens formed to aid the county in the establishment of the trail. King County had "stacked" the CAG. The County denied membership in the CAG to any of the trailside residents who had protested the countyís actions. In King County, Washington, it is important to select citizen advisors that will advise what the county wants to hear.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           After introducing the CAG to the attendees of the meeting, Ms. Knauer stated her intention to parade these folks along the right-of-way. I perceived this as a violation of my property rights. After the meeting, I got directly in Ms. Knauerís face and advised her she didnít have an easement for a trail, only an easement for a railroad on my property. I told her that I would have her arrested if she trespassed on my right-of-way land, for trail purposes, without first justifying her right to me. I followed up that confrontation the next day with an email to Ron Sims, the executive of King County. Ms. Knauer's department was copied in that email. In that letter, I described Knauer's intention to illegally parade the Citizenís Advisory Group (CAG) across my right-of-way property, and I quoted the Washington State law that required that I be compensated before the County used my land for that purpose.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View my April 9, 1999 email to Ron Sims describing Ms. Knauerís intention to trespass on my property.

    Ms. Knauer tried to lure me into a false arrest.

           Ms. Knauer never responded to that April 9th email or contacted me to explain her right to take the CAG across my property. Instead, just two days later on April 11, 1999, Knauer arrogantly paraded the CAG across my property. Along with her CAG, she had a King County Prosecutor and a police officer in plain clothes. If Ms. Knauer had any fear for her safety, she would have had the police officer in uniform with his gun in plain sight. Instead, she had the officer in plain clothes in an obvious attempt to lure me, or one of my neighbors, into a confrontation and false arrest. The arrest of a member of the East Lake Sammamish shoreline community would have had a great effect to quiet the protest of the countyís illegal actions.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           I was out of town on April 11, 1999, when Jennifer Knauer illegally paraded her CAG across my property. My wife was at home and verbally challenged Ms. Knauer, telling her she was not welcome. Ms. Knauer dismissed my wife's protest, continued across our property, and then re-crossed a short time later. My wife sent me an email describing that event. I responded the next day. Read my wife's letter to understand the stress that King County was placing on us and our fellow ELS residents. Read my letter to decide if my reaction to the countyís trespass was measured and rational, or if I'm the threatening menace which Ms. Knauer describes in this perjurious declaration.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View an April 11, 1999 letter from my wife to me, describing Ms. Knauerís trespass on our property.

        View an April 12, 1999 letter from me to my wife, expressing caution and patience after Knauerís trespass.

    Ms. Knauer's statement is unsubstantiated hearsay.

           Ms. Knauer's statement above that "I learned that John Rasmussen had threatened to use force to remove County employees from the corridor in the vicinity of his home." is hearsay. She wasn't personally threatened. She has no personal knowledge of these phantom threats. She names no person or date in her statement, so these alleged threats are completely unsubstantiated. After Ms. Knauer's opening statement that she has "...personal knowledge of the matters contained herein...", her first statement alleging any wrongdoing lacks any "personal knowledge". Considering that this declaration was coached by the King County Prosecutor, it is obscene that he allowed Knauer to present unsubstantiated hearsay. But, this is minor in relation to the many criminal acts which were committed by the Prosecutor, and which I describe on this website.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Where is Ms. Knauer's notification to her supervisor or the King County Sheriff?

           If Ms. Knauer learned that "...John Rasmussen had threatened to use force to remove County employees from the corridor in the vicinity of his home", where is the evidence that she expressed her concern to her supervisors at that time? More important, why didn't she contact Sheriff Reichert? The Sheriff had responsibility to protect her employees. Where is the notification of her concerns to Reichert? If Ms. Knauer had knowledge of illegal threats, why didn't she have the Sheriff contact me? I believe that neither Knauer, nor Reichert, nor any other County official had any concerns about me. Instead, I believe that Ms. Knauer has manufactured these concerns in her declaration to aid the Prosecutor in obtaining a preliminary injunction against me. I tried repeatedly to encourage Sheriff Reichert to have the character to stand up to the County's corruption. Read my letters to the Sheriff, linked here. The reader will notice that it was I who notified Sheriff Reichert of my concerns. Where is evidence of any notification of Ms. Knauer's concerns to the Sheriff? (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read my letter to Sheriff Reichert on August 11, 1999.

        Read my letter to Sheriff Reichert on January 23, 2000.

        My "whistle blower" letter on February 7, 2000, exposing the tax fraud scheme, was copied to Sheriff Reichert.

        Confirm my letter to David Irons on August 9, 2000 was copied to Sheriff Reichert.



6. A Parks employee, Lori Hoover, first reported that she had been out at a local church while looking for a possible meeting room, where she met and spoke with Nancy Rasmussen by chance. Lori came back to Parks very shaken because Nancy Rasmussen threatened that her husband would become violent against County employees on the corridor, that he was extremely upset about that planned trail, and that his behavior was ruining their marriage.



    Note from John Rasmussen

    Is this double hearsay, or is it triple hearsay?

           Let me get this one straight. Ms. Jennifer Knauer says, that Ms. Lori Hoover says, that my former wife says, that I said, that I "...would become violent against County employees on the corridor..." Here, Ms. Knauer is declaring under oath that she has "personal knowledge" of a private conversation I NEVER had with my wife. This is a ridiculous lie, but equally important, this is hearsay. The King County Prosecutor knew that this was hearsay when he coached Ms. Knauer to make this statement and when he presented this declaration in court. In our declarations, both my wife and I declared this statement by Knauer was a lie. In contrast to Knauer's hearsay, both of our declarations were based on our personal knowledge of our private conversations. It is very disgusting for Ms. Knauer to declare under oath that she has "personal knowledge" of our private conversations because it is impossible for my wife and me to prove what we have not said to each other in private.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Why didn't Lori Hoover submit a declaration?

           So, where is the declaration of Lori Hoover? If Ms. Hoover had some personal knowledge that was relevant to the County's lawsuit against me, it was she who should have submitted a declaration. If it is true that Ms. Hoover made the statements Knauer claims, the facts of which Hoover had personal knowledge would have been allowed in court. The King County Prosecutor knew this. As a King County employee, Ms. Hoover available for the Prosecutor. There is no excuse for the Prosecutor to not have presented a declaration by her. I suspect that Ms. Hoover was unwilling to swear an oath, under penalty of perjury, to the absolute lies which Ms. Knauer attributed to her. We'll never know.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    There was a legitimate declaration available for Judge Haley.

           Ms. Knauer's above statement is double hearsay, because she had no "...personal knowledge of the matters..." she declared. Ms. Hoover apparently wanted no part of King County's tactics to slander me. So, where do we go for the truth? My (now former) wife, Nancy Rasmussen, had personal knowledge of the facts Ms. Knauer dishonestly presented. So, King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley, who conducted the preliminary injunction hearing, was required under to law to give preference to my wife's declaration. Here is a portion of the sworn declaration that my wife made in reaction to Jennifer Knauer's hearsay.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "Concerning Lori Hoover: first of all, I never spoke to Lori Hoover in the presence of Jennifer Knauer, so I don't know where Jennifer Knauer is coming from when she tells this court, under penalty of perjury, that she is reporting facts for which she has "personal knowledge". Jennifer Knauer cannot possibly have "personal knowledge" of the conversation I had with Lori Hoover at the Faith United Methodist Church office. I met Lori Hoover at my office in the church, and she requested authorization for a meeting space for a series of meetings for CAG. Lori Hoover said the CAG meetings would be "friendly neighborhood sharing meetings", or words to that effect. I told her I knew the meetings would be quite upsetting to the people most affected by the proposed trail. I observed Lori Hoover react in a surprised manner. The church was located away from the trail area, on the upper plateau, so I am certain Lori Hoover did not expect to meet someone knowledgeable about the unfairness of this land-grabbing scheme by King County.

             I told Lori Hoover that my husband and I were quite upset, and that this trail issue was causing problems in my family. I told her "No way can you have your meetings at this church" or words to this effect. At no time did I tell Lori Hoover that my husband, John Rasmussen, "would become violent against County employees on the corridor". Also, I noticed that Lori Hoover became quite agitated when I informed her she would not be allowed to use the church for these heated, controversial CAG meetings. There was no place in our church for that, because it is a place of worship. After Lori Hoover left the church office, I telephoned another local church and forewarned the church staff of Lori Hoover's impending arrival at their church, and encouraged the staff to refuse Lori Hoover's request to open their church for the CAG meetings, because I didn't think the meetings would have the climate that they would want in their church, either.

             Although I saw Lori Hoover at a subsequent CAG meeting across a crowded room, we never spoke, nor did we make any attempts to engage in any further discussions. The report by Jennifer Knauer that I informed Lori Hoover that I was worried about my husband's propensity for violence is absolutely false. My husband is a nonviolent man. I have known him for over 34 years, and he has never hit me. He is an intelligent, caring man, and I vigorously deny any allegation that he would be violent towards King County employees."
        [View the full declaration by Nancy Rasmussen.]

    King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley accepted King County's lies.

           It is obscene that the King County Prosecutor would present this slanderous hearsay "evidence". More disgusting was the willingness of King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley to accept this, and the other slanderous hearsay statements by Jennifer Knauer and Shelly Marelli, in his preliminary injunction hearing. As for Knauer and Marelli being prosecuted for perjury, the King County Prosecutor would never prosecute his own declarants!
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Where is Ms. Knauer's notification to the Sheriff?

           In her statement above, Ms. Knauer claims "personal knowledge" of criminal threats by me. Assuming for a moment that her double hearsay actually represents "personal knowledge" as she solemnly swears, where is her notification to King County Sheriff Dave Reichert? She had a duty to report her "personal knowledge" of this criminal threat, if it actually happened and if she actually had "personal knowledge". Again, I provide several of the letters which I sent to Sheriff Reichert asking that he defend me and the people of King County against the criminal activity of the King County leadership. Why is this King County manager "forgetting" to contact the sheriff, and why is it I who asked the Sheriff to defend me. Usually the person being illegally harmed is the one who contacts the Sheriff and asks for protection. Would someone please explain why Ms. Knauer "forgot" to express her "personal knowledge" of this criminal threat to the Sheriff? I was never allowed to question her under oath because of the illegal application of summary judgment in the "resolution" of my lawsuit.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read my letter to Sheriff Reichert on August 11, 1999.

        Read my letter to Sheriff Reichert on January 23, 2000.

        My "whistle blower" letter on February 7, 2000, exposing the tax fraud scheme, was copied to Sheriff Reichert.

        Confirm my letter to David Irons on August 9, 2000 was copied to Sheriff Reichert.



    7. At the subsequent public meeting, I met Nancy Rasmussen personally. She introduced herself and told me that her husband, John Rasmussen, was very irrational and upset about the planned trail, and advised that the County should avoid a confrontation with him.



      Note from John Rasmussen

      Ms. Knauer is lying.

             Ms. Knauer is completely dishonest with her above description of a conversation with my wife. But, at least for the first time in this declaration, Ms. Knauer could claim she had "...personal knowledge of the matters...". She did have a conversation with my wife at a subsequent public meeting. So, this is a case of my wife's word against Knauer's word. For me, it's easy to identify who's lying. I have known Nancy Rasmussen for more that forty years and was married to Nancy Rasmussen for thirty-three years. I know her to be honest. Also, I have personal knowledge that Ms. Knauer lied in other parts of this declaration. Her statement of a confrontation between ELS salvager Rick Spence and me is an absolute lie of which I have personal knowledge, and Knauer does not. I had a very friendly relationship with Rick Spence. Spence was sympathetic to the plight of the trail side residents. This lie by Knauer is discussed, in detail, below.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             My wife made the following statement after reading the above portion of Ms. Knauerís declaration.

          "I have read the declaration of Jennifer Knauer, and she claims that I met with her at several CAG meetings and discussed my husband with her, telling her that I was worried that my husband would become irrational or violent, and that the County should avoid a confrontation with him. This characterization of my husband as a dangerous, irrational, violent man is false. At no time have I ever provided such ridiculous statements to anyone, including Jennifer Knauer, and I vigorously encourage this court to discount any such representations by Jennifer Knauer or Lori Hoover, because they are false statements."
          [View the full declaration by Nancy Rasmussen.]

             As I stated above, I know my former wife to be honest. Further, Ms, Knauer proves herself to be a liar in other parts of her declaration. Knauer had no fear of prosecution for perjury because she was making these false statements to aid and protect the King County Prosecutor. The Prosecutor wasn't going to prosecute his crony.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



    8. Because of Ms. Rasmussens' comments, I was concerned for my safety, and the safety of other County employees when on the corridor near the Rasmussens' home.

    9. Therefore, we at Parks instituted an informal safety policy.

    10. Myself and Parks staff never entered the corridor alone near the Rasmussen residence, and always carried a cellular telephone in case of an emergency.



      Note from John Rasmussen

      Ms. Knauer is lying again.

             Where is there any evidence of Ms. Knauer's "informal safety policy"? Where is a memorandum to prove that this phantom policy was established? When was it instituted? Who received notice of this phantom "informal safety policy"? When a project manager for King County feels so threatened that she needs to institute an "informal safety policy" to protect her employees from harm, she would have a duty to notify her supervisors and the King County Sheriff. Where is there any written documentation of this notification? Why didn't Ms. Knauer let me know that she felt threatened by me? What harm could come from talking to a King County resident in order to clear up a safety concern? I would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss that issue with Ms. Knauer. Further, if Knauer had contacted me with her safety concerns, I would confirm that fact here. What better proof could be provided than that? Where are the notifications which would naturally come from the institution of a "safety policy"? If they existed, they should have been attached to this declaration as exhibits. It appears to me that this "informal safety policy" may have been so completely "informal" that it never even existed. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             If Ms. Knauer required that none of her staff enter the right-of-way near my house without another employee along, for the purpose of safety, there would have been the need to schedule employees to pair-up for their "protection". If that really happened, there would be documents which show that Ms. Knauer's employees were scheduled together for safety in the area near my house. Where is even one document which shows that was scheduled, even one time? Where's any proof of that requirement?
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             Ms. Knauer's proof of an "informal safety policy" is her undocumented statement that she had her staff carry cell phones while on the right-of-way. It would have been natural for King County employees to take cell phones with them when they were out of the office and on the right-of-way. Cell phones are used to communicate when one is "away". But, it is a very different situation to require an employee to carry a cell phone in order to protect himself from harm. If that policy had been put in effect by Ms. Knauer, where is evidence of written notification to her staff that they should carry cell phones on the right-of-way to protect themselves from my "threats"? Where is a statement by one of her employees that they were given this instruction? Knauer provides no document or statement in support of her perjurious claim. But, her cell phone "proof" is cute.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Cell phone brain cancer?

             It's obvious that Ms. Knauer had no fear of me. Her declaration that she had her staff carry cell phones out of "fear" of me is simply another lie. How was her staff going to defend themselves with a cell phone against my supposed "violence"? As a form of self-defense, did Ms. Knauer instruct her staff to hold their cell phones near my head to strike me down with the now-famous cell phone brain cancer? Ridiculous! This woman sold out her honesty and her integrity in order to further herself in a very dishonest King County bureaucracy. It is no coincidence that I never had the opportunity to challenge this very dishonest woman under oath, in court. Ms. Knauer perjured herself with assurance from the King County Prosecutor that she would never be held responsible for the harm caused by her lies.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



    11. Parks also made certain that a King County sheriff's deputy was present during all other public meetings regarding the trail project.



      Note from John Rasmussen

             If Ms. Knauer requested that a deputy sheriff attend all other public meetings out of a concern for me, then where is the documentation of her request for support, based on a stated concern about me? Where is the written request for a deputy sheriff to provide security with my name shown as the reason for that request. Also, if Ms. Knauer expressed a fear of me in a request to the sheriff, why didn't the sheriff's office get in touch with me to discuss the matter. I would have been very willing to calm any fears. Ms. Knauer provides no documentation of such a request. It is suspicious that she provides no documentation for any of her claims. On the other hand, I provide letters that I wrote at the time I had concerns with King County's criminal actions against my family. Why isn't similar documentation provided as proof of Knauer's claims? Here are two letters that I wrote to the King County Sheriff concerning King County's criminal activity. Where's Knauer's letters to the Sheriff.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          View my letter to Sheriff Reichert on August 11, 1999. (And his non-specific reply.)

          View my second letter to Sheriff Reichert on January 23, 2000. (No reply to this one.)



    12. At one such later public meeting, I again spoke with Nancy Rasmussen. John Rasmussen apparently did not attend.

    13. Nancy Rasmussen again told me that her husband does not like strangers on the corridor. She stated that she was worried that her husband would become violent.



      Note from John Rasmussen

        Again, I quote my wifeís remarks in response to this lie.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          "I have read the declaration of Jennifer Knauer, and she claims that I met with her at several CAG meetings and discussed my husband with her, telling her that I was worried that my husband would become irrational or violent, and that the County should avoid a confrontation with him. This characterization of my husband as a dangerous, irrational, violent man is false. At no time have I ever provided such ridiculous statements to anyone, including Jennifer Knauer, and I vigorously encourage this court to discount any such representations by Jennifer Knauer or Lori Hoover, because they are false statements."
          [View the full declaration by Nancy Rasmussen.]

             It's difficult to prove that Jennifer is lying here. There is no date given to the meeting. No witnesses are described by Ms. Knauer (or my wife). As I stated above, the proof that Ms. Knauer is lying is found in her profound and identifiable dishonesty throughout this declaration. I have personal knowledge that Ms. Knauer is lying in this declaration. I have personal knowledge that my wife is honest. While one can claim that I benefit by making those statements, the same can be said for the benefit King County receives from the hearsay evidence and outright lies submitted by Ms. Knauer.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



    14. I also learned from rail salvager Rick Spence that John Rasmussen had earlier confronted him and his workers on the corridor.



      Note from John Rasmussen

      The lies just keep on coming!

             Here, Ms. Knauer has characterized my relationship with Rick Spence as confrontational. This is another outright lie by this very dishonest woman. Mr. Spence was sympathetic to the violation of the East Lake Sammamish resident's rights by King County. I talked to Rick Spence a couple of times and had a friendly relationship with him. In this case, Ms. Knauer is describing actions about which I have personal knowledge, and she does not. This is just another example of hearsay in this perjurious declaration by Jennifer Knauer. In her first statement of this declaration, Ms. Knauer states that "I have personal knowledge of the matters contained herein and am competent to testify thereto." Yet, Knauer was not there to personally hear my conversations with Rick Spence, so Ms. Knauer had no "personal knowledge" on which to base her statement of a confrontation. The confrontational conversations between Rick Spence and me, which Ms. Knauer "establishes" by hearsay, never happened. I know. I was there. She wasn't!
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             The truth is that Rick Spence had a problem with Ms. Knauer and King County, not with me and my neighbors. Rick Spence publicly complained that King County tried to force him to do additional work through "intimidation". He made claims of "money laundering" in the County's dealings with him. He described unethical maneuvers by King County to allow underpayment of laborers. Evidence of this contentious relationship with Ms. Knauer's department and King County government can be seen in this article from the Eastside Journal newspaper, in December 2000. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          "Trail fight goes to court today: Contractor alleges county forced him to put down gravel"

             In my letters to County officials, I repeatedly stated the County did not have an easement for a trail, and that compensation was due before the County entered my property for trail purposes. I didnít oppose railroad work on the right-of-way because a railroad right-of-way had been granted by a previous owner of my property. I never protested maintenance on the railroad right-of-way, which would include removal of the rails and ties by Rick Spence. I differentiated between the railroad easement and the non-existent trail easement. Further, when I met County employees on the right-of-way, I asked if they were there for rail or trail purpose, and did not oppose their presence if they were there for rail purposes. Ms. Knauer made-up a confrontation between Rick Spence and me which never happened. Here is proof that I protested trespass for trail purposes, and separated those concerns from railroad work. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Read a July 15, 1999 email to the King County leadership protesting only its trespass for trail purposes.



    15. Further, John Rasmussen sent hostile, threatening e-mails to myself and other County staff.



      Note from John Rasmussen

      Who was "Hostile" and "threatening"? King County or me?

             "Hostile" and "threatening" e-mails. Which ones? I sent emails for fifteen months which King County and Ms. Knauer intentionally ignored and stonewalled. It would have been nice if Ms. Knauer had identified which e-mails were "Hostile" and "threatening". If she had, I would have had the opportunity to explain her manipulation of my words into a threat. Instead, we get a statement of her very sharp memory of unidentified "threats". Ms. Knauer claims that she had strong feelings about her perceived "threats", but conveniently fails to justify her fears with any specific facts which I could rebut. This is true of the "Hostile" and "threatening" emails she describes in her above statement. If she had identified which e-mails were "Hostile" and "threatening", I could have asked her a couple of questions. I would have asked her why she didn't respond to my description of the federal tax fraud scheme used to establish her trail. I would have asked her to explain why she ignored and stonewalled my many requests for a dialogue with King County. I would have asked her if she had a responsibility to act legally in her actions against my family and me. I would have asked her why she never complained about "Hostile" and "threatening" emails when they were sent, but rather only complained much later when her complaint was convenient for the Prosecutor to use in justifying his preliminary injunction.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             The truth is that Ms. Knauer actively worked to harm my family and destroy my rights. Here, she pretends that she was the one harmed in the fifteen months that she and her fellow county employees worked against my family and stonewalled every attempt I made to communicate with the King County government.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



    16. For these reasons, during my tenure, myself and Parks staff were always concerned about and afraid of John Rasmussen, when entering the corridor near the Rasmussen's home.

    17. I was concerned for my safety, and the safety of other County employees.



      Note from John Rasmussen

      This declaration is my first notification of Ms. Knauer's concern.

             This declaration is my first, and only, notification that Ms. Knauer was "concerned" about me. It's amazing that this "concern" appeared at the same time that the King County Prosecutor went looking for someone to slander and misrepresent me in support of his motion for a preliminary injunction. As I've observed throughout this annotated declaration, itís obvious that Knauer never contacted the King County Sheriff to express her "concern". But, I wrote the Sheriff two times, expressing my concern and asking him to enforce the law with respect to King County's illegal actions. Also, Sheriff Reichert was copied in other significant emails. He refused to answer my concerns. The Sheriff stonewalled my attempts to have a dialogue with him, in the same manner as Ms. Knauer, the Prosecutor, and the leadership of the King County stonewalled my attempts to communicate with them.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Read my letter to Sheriff Reichert on August 11, 1999.

          Read my letter to Sheriff Reichert on January 23, 2000.

          My "whistle blower" letter on February 7, 2000 was copied to Sheriff Reichert.

          Confirm my letter to David Irons on August 9, 2000 was copied to Sheriff Reichert.

             Ms. Knauerís belated expression of her "concern" was obviously manufactured at the King County Prosecutor's request. The prosecutor needed to have someone express their "fear" of me in order to justify his preliminary injunction motion. Since I met and peacefully challenged trespassing King County employees on the right-of-way for fifteen months, and none of them expressed fear of me, the prosecutor had to manufacture "fear". Ms. Knauer came to the prosecutorís rescue with this very dishonest declaration. Ms. Knauer was the perfect team player when it came time for King County to use its citizen control technique: "Lie, Stonewall and Slander". "Slander" is the operative word in this declaration.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



    18. Our informal safety policy remained in place during my entire tenure.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

    EXECUTED this ___ day of August, 2000 at SEATTLE, Washington.

    ________________________________________

    JENNIFER KNAUER



      Summary by John Rasmussen:

      This declaration is part of King County's cover-up of the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

             King County participated in a federal tax fraud scheme which involved the theft of my land. I blew the whistle on the crime and demanded an explanation from the County for its criminal actions against my family. King County lied and stonewalled. After months of attempting to get answers, I notified my King County councilman and the sheriff that, absent negotiations with the County, I would give 72 hours notice and then begin to defend my property and life with a shotgun. Rather than finally begin a dialog, King County filed a lawsuit against me. Now, years later, I understand why the County refused to communicate with me. The County knew it was guilty of illegal acts against me and that it could best hide its crime by taking the issues to court. For "Brer Rabbit" Norm Maleng, the "briar patch" was the courts. As one will realize, Norm Maleng had great power to manipulate his opponents in both King County Superior Court, and the Federal District Court in Western Washington. One of the first dishonest actions by King County in the legal process was this declaration by Jennifer Knauer. This declaration was designed to falsely threaten me with criminal acts in support of a preliminary injunction designed to stop my interference with King County's theft of my land.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Jennifer Knauer is completely dishonest.

             As shown in my annotated comments, this declaration by East Lake Sammamish Trial Project Manager Jennifer Knauer is blatant perjury. Every statement she makes against me is based on hearsay or identifiable lies. There is no supporting documentation for any of her dishonest claims. Furthermore, after describing me as some kind of a monster who caused great fear in her and her employees, Ms. Knauer fails to identify any instance where she complained to her supervisors or the King County Sheriff, Dave Reichert. Additionally, Ms. Knauer never expressed her "fears" and concerns to me in spite of my repeatedly asking for communication with King County. Ms. Knauer's "paralyzing fear" was never expressed until the King County Prosecutor needed someone to slander me in support of his lawsuit. The timing is simply too coincidental.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Ms. Knauer fails to name even one person threatened by me, and refuses to describe our confrontation.

             In spite of her repeated claims of threats, please notice that Ms. Knauer fails to name even one person threatened by me. There is a good reason for that. I never illegally threatened any King County employee. If I did threaten County employees, doesn't it seem odd that Ms. Knauer fails to identify even one? Of course, Ms. Knauer was very aware of a confrontation between me and a King County employee. That employee was Ms. Knauer, herself. I documented a confrontation with Ms. Knauer at a public meeting on April 8, 1999 in which I explained to her that she was acting illegally, and that I would have her arrested if she trespassed on my land without contacting me first. Ms. Knauer "forgot" to mention that confrontation in this declaration. Also, she "forgot" to mention her attempt to lure me, or one of my neighbors, into a false arrest three days later. On that day, she tucked a King County Prosecutor and a plain clothed deputy sheriff in her CAG and paraded them along the ELS right-of-way in front of my house. I had demanded she contact me and explain her right to enter my property, and this was her "jackboot" response. You'd think that information would be worth Ms. Knauer including in this "sworn declaration". But, the problem with including that documented event is that it would expose Knauer as an arrogant and powerful bureaucrat rather that the timid young woman, cowering in fear, which she portrays herself to be in this declaration. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      This declaration has a perjurious twin.

             This declaration in one of two perjurious declarations presented by the King County Prosecutor in support of his preliminary injunction against me. The other declaration by Shelly Marelli is even more ridiculous. I never met Ms. Marelli nor did I ever have any contact with her, yet she implied that she was paralyzed in fear of me. The King County Prosecutor produced no first hand statements of threats by me. Instead, the Prosecutor produced two declarations which are based on identifiable lies and hearsay.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      It was difficult to defend myself against Ms. Knauer's vague accusations.

             I've described Ms. Knauer's recollections in this declaration as a very sharp memory of vaguely remembered events. I've described her memory is an oxymoron. Her memory is very sharp in describing the fear she felt about certain events, but completely vague in defining exactly what caused her precisely remembered fear, exactly who was threatened, exactly when these fear causing events happened, and exactly where they happened. So, without anything specific facts to refute, I'm left with no way to prove her statements were false. How do I defend myself with specific facts and documentation against her clear memory of undefined events? Now, years later, I understand that Ms. Knauer confidently lied about me. I was denied the right to confront her, and prove her to be a liar, because of the legal maneuvers by the King County Prosecutor. My right to depose and question her under oath was cut off by the illegal use of summary judgment. Ms. Knauer had no fear of perjury charges. Norm Maleng and his team had ample influence in the state and federal courts to protect Knauer and Marelli.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Reference:

        View this Jennifer Knauer declaration, without my comments.

        View an annotated version of Shelley Marelliís perjurious declaration.

        View my letter to Sheriff Reichert on August 11, 1999, describing King County's trespassing.

        View my second letter to Sheriff Reichert on January 23, 2000, describing the ELS tax fraud scheme.

        View my "whistle blower" email to Ron Sims and the King County Council on February 7, 2000.

        View my email letter to King County Councilman David Irons on August 9, 2000.

        View an annotated transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing held by Judge Donald Haley.

        Read a detailed description of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

        Read an annotated version of King County v. Rasmussen (2001).

        Read an annotated version of King County v. Rasmussen (2002).

        Read an annotated version of Ray v. King County (2004).























































    Reference


    Background leading to the September 14, 2000 Preliminary Injunction Hearing
    in King County v. Rasmussen and this slanderous declaration by Jennifer Knauer:

Stonewalling and lies:

         The September 14, 2000 Preliminary Injunction Hearing in King County v. Rasmussen grew out of my discovery of King County's participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. I discovered the tax fraud scheme in early 2000. Since King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng appeared to be the most active participant in the crime, on January 31, 2000 I wrote an email to Norm Maleng describing the tax fraud scheme and challenging him to explain his participation. Maleng refused to reply to my email, so on February 7, 2000 I wrote an email to Ron Sims and the King County Council, forwarding my January 31st email and requesting the leadership of the County to investigate and respond. The leadership of King County did not respond. The County leadership is famous for its policy of "Lie, Stonewall and Slander". Stonewalling is how King County "answered" my emails. Several months passed and the County continued to send a stream of employees across my land. The County simply took over my land, and when I demanded it explain its right, the County completely ignored me. Finally, on July 4, 2000 I wrote an email to David Irons, my King County Council representative, describing the situation. I followed up that letter with a second, more detailed, email to Irons on August 9, 2000. In those two emails I described the federal tax fraud scheme and King County's participation. I explained the lies that the County leadership had used to cover-up its crime. I described the stonewalling. I described the County's occupation of my property as an illegal act of adverse possession. I explained that King County was violating my rights and that I wanted some answers. I ended my August 9, 2000 email with this statement. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "If the County provides a valid claim to me that needs to be settled in court, I am willing to settle those questions in that manner.

      If nothing happens from this letter, I'll give 72 hours notice to everyone I've ever written over the last fifteen months and then meet any trespassers on my property with a loaded shotgun. I will demand they prove to me their right to be there, or I will use whatever force is necessary to remove them. I will not allow the County to steal my property by adverse possession, fraud and direct violation of the laws and Constitution of the State of Washington."
      [August 9, 2000 email from me to King County Councilman David Irons, linked below.]

         Read the complete August 9, 2000 email from me to King County Councilman David Irons which King County used to mischaracterize me as a criminal. Please note that the King County Sheriff, Dave Reichert, is copied in that email. Understand that it was I who tried to get the Sheriff to stand up to the corruption in the County. Understand the fact that the King County Prosecutor claims in court that I was illegally threatening County employees, but the Prosecutor shows no evidence that he ever contacted the Sheriff to report this "criminal" act.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read my August 9, 2000 email to King County Councilman David Irons.

         The following letters were attached to the above August 9, 2000 email. They show the stonewalling by the County which led to my email letter on August 9th. These email letters fall into two categories. The letters from April 9, 1999 through November 19, 1999 deal with the immoral and dishonest use of Railbanking. The letters from December 19, 1999 through August 9, 2000 deal with my discovery of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and my challenge to King County to explain its participation in the crime. Railbanking is a very unfair law, but it is legal. Federal tax fraud is a crime, and is not legal. These email letters are presented in reverse chronological order.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      February 7, 2000 email to Ron Sims and County Council describing the federal tax fraud scheme used to establish the trail. No Response.

      February 7, 2000 email to Ron Sims and County Council describing the federal tax fraud scheme used to establish the trail. No Response.

      January 23, 2000 email to the King County Sheriff, challenging the Sheriff to uphold the law. No Response.

      January 18, 2000 email to my weak King County Representative, David Irons, Communication, But No Promised Action.

      January 11, 2000 email to the prosecutor asking him to meet with me to discuss our differences. No Response.

      January 10, 2000 email to Norm Maleng, the Prosecutor, asking him to confirm his claim to ownership of my right-of-way land. No Response.

      December 31, 1999 email to the prosecutor asking him, a second time, to answer my question. No Response.

      December 19, 1999 email to the prosecutor asking him to confirm his claim to ownership of all the land under the ELS right-of-way. No Response.

      November 29, 1999 email to King County dcfm with cc. to King County leadership. No Response.

      August 18, 1999 email to Maggi Fimia, King County Council, asking her to obey the law. No Response.

      August 11, 1999 email to the King County Sheriff and leadership explaining that I believe the Sheriff is ignoring a crime. No Intelligible Response.

      August 11, 1999 email to the King County Sheriff and leadership explaining that I believe the Sheriff is ignoring a crime. No Intelligible Response.

      August 2, 1999 email to the King County prosecutor demanding he explain his "clear view" of the legal situation on ELST. No Response.

      July 15, 1999 email to Ron Sims, County Council and Sheriff. I demanded they justify their trespass on my property. No Response.

      July 4, 1999 email to Ron Sims, County Council and Sheriff. I asked they respect my property rights on the Forth of July. No Response.

      June 21, 1999 email to Ron Sims and County Council. I demanded they justify their trespass on my property. No Response.

      April 29, 1999 email to the King County prosecutor. I demand he stay off my property until I was compensated for the taking. No Response.

      April 26, 1999 email from the King County prosecutor. Vague, non-specific response.

      April 21, 1999 email to the King County prosecutor demanding that the county recognize my property rights. Vague Response.

      April 14, 1999 email to Governor Gary Locke, requesting assistance defending my rights. No Significant Response.

      April 9, 1999 email to Ron Sims demanding that the county recognize my property rights. No Response.

King County Executive Ron Sims threatened false criminal prosecution:

         King County refused to answer my August 9, 2000 email letter, just as it had refused to respond to my legitimate concerns expressed in the letters which were attached. Instead, the leadership of King County responded to my August 9th letter by mischaracterizing the statements I made, and by threatening me with false felony prosecution. The County acted exactly as a crooked municipality reacts when its criminal activity is exposed. Rather that admit the County's criminal activity, Ron Sims attacked me, the messenger. On August 24, 2000, I received a letter from King County Executive Ron Sims claiming I stated that I intended to "shoot County employees on the corridor". That statement by Ron Sims is a lie. One can prove that it is a lie by first reading Sims 8-24-2000 letter to me, which is provided directly below, then reading the email letters which Sims refers to as a basis of his lie. All of those email letters are also linked below. One will realize that Sims did not address any of my accusations of fraud, theft, and trespassing. He did not offer to finally communicate with me and explain the County's illegal actions. Instead, he mischaracterized my willingness to legally defend myself against King County's criminal acts as an illegal threat by me to randomly kill County employees. Sims characterized me as a mass murderer, and threatened to falsely prosecute me for a felony. Sims lied. Here is that threatening letter by Ron Sims. (my emphasis in bold font.) (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      August 24, 2000

      John Rasmussen
      1605 E. Lake Sammamish Place SE
      Sammamish, WA 98029

      Dear Mr. Rasmussen:

      I have received and reviewed the e-mails which you sent to County officials on April 9, 1999, April 29, 1999, June 21, 1999, July 4, 1999, August 2, 1999, August 11, 1999, August 18, 1999, November 29, 1999, December 19, 1999, January 10, 2000, January 11, 2000, January 18, 2000, January 23, 2000, January 31, 2000, February 7, 2000, and August 11, 2000.

      In many of these e-mails, you threatened to use force against County employees on the East Lake Sammamish corridor. You have recently escalated your threats to harm County employees. In your e-mail of November 29, 1999, you threatened to "use whatever force is necessary" to force County employees from the corridor. In your e-mail of August 11th, you repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees on the corridor.

      I am deeply concerned by your threats. By threatening to harm County employees, you may have committed the crime of harassment, RCW 9A.46.020.

      Please be advised that I have forwarded your e-mails to the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office for their review and possible criminal charges. Further, King County has filed a civil lawsuit to confirm the County's rights in the corridor, and to seek an injunction to prevent you from threatening or interfering with County employees and officials in any way.

      Sincerely,

      Ron Sims
      King County Executive

      cc:    Chief Dick Baranzini, Chief of Police, City of Sammamish
              The Honorable Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney, Office of Prosecuting Attorney
              The Honorable Dave Reichert, Sheriff, King County Sheriff s Office
      [Ron Sims' August 24, 2000 letter threatening me with false felony prosecution.]

         In Sims' letter, he refers to my ""e-mail of August 11th". There was no email from me to the County on August 11, 2000. I assume that he is referring to my email on August 9, 2000 in which I state my intention to defend my life and property with a shotgun. There is no email in which I "repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees on the corridor". That statement is an outrageous lie by Ron Sims. Since Sims threatens false felony prosecution with that statement, I have to assume Sims' statement that I "repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees" is an intentional lie designed to illegally threaten me. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         It is important to realize that Sims admits receiving my letters for fifteen months, but does not explain why he refused to answer my concerns. Here are the emails which Sims refers to in his letter to me on August 24, 2000. Since Ron Sims refused to communicate with me for fifteen months, these letters are the only basis of Sims' claim that I "repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees on the corridor". The emails are in reverse chronological order, starting with my August 9, 2000 email the first. I invite the reader to find any threat by me to "shoot County employees on the corridor". There is none!
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      August 9, 2000 email to David Irons. I assume this is the "August 11, 2000" email referred to by Sims.

      February 7, 2000 email to Ron Sims and Council. No Response.

      January 31, 2000 email to Norm Maleng. No Response.

      January 23, 2000 email to the King County Sheriff. No Response.

      January 18, 2000 email to David Irons. Communication, But No Promised Action.

      January 11, 2000 email to Deputy Prosecutor Eldred. No Response.

      January 10, 2000 email to Norm Maleng. No Response.

      December 19, 1999 email to the Deputy Prosecutor Eldred. No Response.

      November 29, 1999 email to King County DCFM Director. No Response.

      August 18, 1999 email to Maggi Fimia. No Response.

      August 11, 1999 email to the King County Sheriff. Inadequate Response.

      August 2, 1999 email to Deputy Prosecutor Eldred. No Response.

      July 4, 1999 email to Ron Sims, County Council and Sheriff. No Response.

      June 21, 1999 email to Ron Sims and County Council. No Response.

      April 29, 1999 email to Deputy Prosecutor Eldred. No Response.

      April 9, 1999 email to Ron Sims. No Response.

         Sims' August 24th letter was a threat of false felony prosecution. By falsely stating that I "repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees on the corridor", Sims manufactured the criteria to prosecute me under RCW 9A.46.020(2)(b). I "blew the whistle" on King County's participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. When I expressed my intention to defend myself against the County's criminal activity, Ron Sims and Norm Maleng threatened false felony prosecution based on the lies of Sims in his August 24th letter and slanderous declarations by two King County managers. The manager's slanderous declarations are discussed below. After this threat of false felony prosecution, I backed off my exposure of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme in order to protect my livelihood and family. Ron Sims' absolute lie that I "repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees on the corridor" is proof that King County was willing to perjure and lie in order to hide its participation in the ELS tax fraud scheme.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Under the Washington State Constitution, I have the right to defend myself with a gun. King County claims I was illegally threatening to "shoot County employees". My email letters show that I was expressing my intention to legally defend my property and my life. I couldn't take a chance the County's lies would be accepted by a jury and that I would be saddled with a false felon conviction. Here is the section of the Washington State Constitution which allows me to use a gun to defend myself. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Washington State Constitution

      Article I - Declaration of Rights

      Section 24 - Right to Bear Arms. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng also threatened false criminal prosecution:

         Shortly after my letter to David Irons on August 9, 2000, King County filed this lawsuit against me in King County Superior Court. In addition to Ron Sims' false claim that I "repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees on the corridor", the King County Prosecutor also manufactured evidence to be used against me. This declaration by Jennifer Knauer and the "sister" declaration by Shelley Marelli are criminal acts against me, and are proof that the Executive and Prosecutor of King County Washington will manufacture evidence in order to "win" in court. One would think that, if these women had been living in "fear" for all these months, there would be some earlier record of complaint. It's amazing that this "fear" materialized just at the moment that it was needed to discredit me and threaten me with false prosecution. Please read the additional annotated declaration to understand.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View the perjurious declaration of Shelley Marelli. Slander, Hearsay, and Identifiable Lies.

      View an annotated transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing.

         King County's threat of false felony prosecution had its intended effect. I had worked my whole life to become an airline captain. After years of sacrifice to attain that status, I was in the few years of my career which paid back financially for my efforts. I needed that salary to put my sons through college and provide for my family. If King County were successful with false felony prosecution, I would lose my pilot's license and my livelihood. If one reads Ron Sims' letter and the perjurious declarations which the County manufactured to discredit me, this tactic of false prosecution should be obvious.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         So, I backed off my accusations of criminal activity by King County and concentrated on a defense of my property rights. King County had little to risk in falsely prosecuting me, and I had everything to lose. My lawyer understood that and tailored his defense of me in a way which protected me from false prosecution. Further, I naively believed in the legitimacy of the judicial system. At that time, I foolishly thought that there may be a few biased and dishonest judges, but eventually fair judges would prevail. A study to the judicial opinions and findings on this website will show that no citizen in the State of Washington can expect the Constitution or the laws to be recognized and enforced in our federal or state courts.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

Criminal acts from the bench:

         For fifteen months the County had stonewalled my requests and demands to explain its illegal actions. When I pressed the issue, the only place I was allowed very limited communication with the County, was in court. I write this webpage more than eight years later and still have got no answers to my questions and accusations. Norm Maleng and the King County leadership had great influence in the state and federal courts. So, the County used the courts to hide its criminal activity, not to resolve legal issues and answer legitimate questions. This truth is evident by a study of the legal proceedings discussed on this website. The most compelling evidence is the annotated versions of the opinions issued by federal and state judges which hid the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and protected the leadership of King County and the other active participants in the crime. Those annotated opinions are linked, here.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read an annotated version of King County v. Rasmussen (2001).

      Read an annotated version of King County v. Rasmussen (2002).

      Read an annotated version of Ray v. King County (2004).

         Because of the violation of my constitutional rights and the illegal use of summary judgment in the resolution of the lawsuit, it is obvious that the leadership of King County, or other participants in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, got to the federal and state judges who decided these lawsuits. The County used the courts to avoid explaining its criminal actions, not to resolve the accusations.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

Why didn't King County criminally prosecute me?

         After reading the slanderous declaration by Shelly Marelli and this declaration by Jennifer Knauer, the reader should be asking why King County didn't prosecute me for illegally threatening King County employees. It would have been a great victory for the County to win a criminal prosecution against a protesting ELS resident. A successful criminal prosecution would have shut down, or greatly muted, the protest of other ELS residents. King County didn't prosecute because it knew its slanderous lies would be exposed in a jury trial. The County knew that a jury trial would allow me the right to question some of the active participants in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme under oath. King County knew that a false prosecution of me would likely expose the County's criminal activity. The King County Prosecutor wanted to threaten me in order to get me to back off on my protest of the County's participation in the tax fraud scheme, but not to actually prosecute me. My lawyer and I were relieved when the County notified us that it would not criminally prosecute me. I believed the evidence of the County's criminal acts would come out in the resolution of my lawsuit. I didn't realize that the Prosecutor, and/or another powerful participant in the ELS tax fraud scheme, would be able to manipulate the outcome of my lawsuit throughout the judicial system. I didn't realize that we no longer have a legitimate judicial system in the State of Washington. But, I do now. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

Summary:

         From the above discussion, it is easy to see how King County confidently committed a criminal act against the U.S. taxpayers, the residents of East Lake Sammamish, and my family. King County accepted a phony donation of land from BNSF in exchange for BNSF railbanking its ELS right-of-way and turning it over to the County. Since BNSF didn't own the land under most of the right-of-way, King County made up a phony legal argument to justify the phony donation of the land under the right-of-way. Then the County ran a misinformation campaign with the public. When I discovered the tax fraud scheme and "blew the whistle", the leadership of King County turned its resources against me in order to hide its crime. Ron Sims, the King County Executive, and Norm Maleng, the Prosecutor, and other County employees manufactured lies about me to threaten me and diminish my claims. Then the County took the issue to court, where they had the power control the lawsuit by influencing the judges. The first court appearance was the preliminary injunction hearing of which this declaration was a part. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The willingness of the County to manufacture lies about me and to provide perjurious declarations in order to hide its crime should be obvious to the reader who studies the transcript of the annotated hearing and this annotated declaration. More troubling was the willingness of Judge Haley, who admitted he had studied the declarations and briefs, to pre-award my land to the County in the face of the County's obvious criminal acts.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         My lawyer and I were at a great disadvantage in this hearing. We foolishly believed that justice would prevail in King County courts. Further, we were forced to back off my claims that the County was committing criminal acts because of the threat by the County to press forward with false felony prosecution. The identifiable lies by Ron Sims and this declaration by Jennifer Knauer are chilling proof of the County's willingness to manufacture evidence to use in a false prosecution.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

Reference:

    View a detailed explanation of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

    View the Evidence of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

    View an analysis of Who Participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

    View my January 31, 2000 email to Norm Maleng, exposing his participation in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

    View my Whistle Blower Letter to Ron Sims and Council in February 2000, outlining the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

    View my July 4, 2000 email to David Irons, challenging him to stand up against King County's corruption.

    View my August 9, 2000 email to David Irons, drawing a "line in the sand".

    View the August 24, 2000, letter from King County Executive Ron Sims to me, threatening false prosecution.

    Read Shelley Marelli's slanderous declaration in this preliminary injunction hearing.

    "Lie, Stonewall and Slander", how King County deals with citizens who challenge its actions.

    "Theft-by-Community", how the community in King County stole the ELS land from its residents.

    Norm Maleng's "Legal Theory" the legal excuse by the Prosecutor for accepting the phony donation of ELS land.

    View a study of how Norm Maleng Covered-up King County's Participation in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme

    Understand how the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy works against the rights of Americans.

    View King County v. Rasmussen (2001) annotated with brief comments.

    View King County v. Rasmussen (2002) annotated with brief comments.

    View Ray v. King County (2004) annotated with brief comments.

    View my 2004 Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, and denial by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Schroeder.

    Understand how Judges Protect their Fellow Judges at the expense of the Constitution and the laws.

    View my March 31, 2009 Public Letter to the Judges of the Washington State Supreme Court.