XXXX
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
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

No:00-2-22395-1 SEA

KING COUNTY, Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN RASMUSSAN, et ux Defendant.

VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS MOTION

September 14, 2000

Before the Honorable Donald Haley, Judge

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff:
Howard Schneiderman & Scott Johnson
Attorneys at Law

For Defendant:
J. J. Sandlin
Attorney at Law

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


Note from John Rasmussen:

Update Comment on May 23, 2013:

         The hearing that I discuss below was a very frustrating experience for me. King County had participated in a federal tax fraud scheme and I'd "blown the whistle" on the County's crime. Below, you see false accusations present against me by Senior Deputy King County Prosecutor Howard Schneiderman. Schneiderman and King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng should have gone to federal prison for their crime. But, that's not how things work in King County, Washington.

         One could accuse my lawyer of failing to defend me in this hearing, but that would be a view looking only back. That's what armchair quarterbacks do on Monday mornings. J.J. Sandlin is my lawyer and is has been a great friend for over fifty years. We met in the winter of 1962 in Bremerton, WA, while taking physicals for induction into the U.S. Naval Academy. We ended up being roommates at Annapolis and have been close friends ever since. J.J. was interested in stopping King County's threat to falsely prosecute me for "threats" at this hearing. Read the perjurious declarations by Marelli and Knauer, documented below, in order to understand. These would have been he-said-she-said arguments in King County court. Marelli's is the most bizarre declaration because I have never had any contact with her, ever, yet she claimed she had "personal knowledge" of "threats". If this had gone on to a trial, these dishonest women would have been required to persist with their lies, or been held responsible for perjury. At this hearing, J.J. Sandlin was most interested in stopping a false felony prosecution of me by King County. He did.

This document:

         This document is an annotated "verbatim report" of the September 14, 2000 hearing of King County's preliminary injunction motion, before King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley, in the County's King County v. Rasmussen lawsuit.

      View this Preliminary Injunction transcript without my comments.

Background leading to this preliminary injunction hearing:

         This preliminary injunction hearing grew out of my exposure of King County's participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. 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. King County's ability to manipulate federal and state judges is a principle focus of this website, and is seen in this annotated document. The County's willingness to manufacture evidence in order to hide its crimes and threaten me is discussed in the detailed explanation of the background, linked directly below. This detailed discussion identifies absolute lies by King County Executive Ron Sims and two female King County managers who perjured themselves in an obvious threat to falsely prosecute me.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Open a detailed explanation of the background to this preliminary injunction hearing.

King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley:

         In this hearing, King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley admits that he has been briefed on the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and criminal actions by the County, yet he ignores those critical issues and grants King County a preliminary injunction against me. Also, he grants King County preliminary ownership to my land. I believe that Haley became an active participant in the tax fraud scheme with this hearing.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

My name is misspelled:

         The court reporter misspelled my last name as "Rasmussan" instead of "Rasmussen" throughout this report. I have not corrected her error in this "verbatim report".

Color Scheme:

        The transcript of this hearing is in blue font. I have added my comments in black font, bracketed by horizontal reference lines, and indented as shown here.



Cheryl Anderson Official Court Reporter

     THE COURT: Since it's the County's motion, the County will go first and last followed by the defendant.

     MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Your Honor, Mr. Rasmussan has made an escalating series of threats to use force against -- frankly, against County employees on East Lake Sammamish rail right of way. I can say on behalf of my clients the final straw was his most recent e-mail, he referred to a loaded shotgun and using whatever force is necessary to remove people. That really scared my client who sent out workers to the corridor to maintain the corridor as consultants doing environmental review out there, and it so scared my clients they are not willing to send anyone out there until Mr. Rasmussan is enjoined from making further threats or any further confrontations. This has been simmering for a long time. We tried to present to you the background and history.



    Note from John Rasmussen:

    Slanderous lies:

           This was one of the saddest moments in my life. I was sitting in court and having a slimy, lying, King County prosecutor characterize my as some sort of criminal, when he and the judge knew that his accusations were false, and his declarations were contrived perjury. On this day I lost some of my faith in my "fellow man", and I began to lose all respect for our legal system. This King County lawyer and judge had sworn an oath to support the law, and neither was keeping that commitment. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           Schneiderman refers to my "threats". Well, the reader can view those "threats" because Schneiderman's only basis of those "threats" are a series of email letters which the County admits receiving and refused to answer for month, after month, after month. Senior Deputy King County Prosecutor Howard Schneiderman is lying. He provides no evidence of any King County employee ever being illegally "threatened" by me. There is none. Instead, Schneiderman presents his twisted, self serving "analysis" of fifteen months of correspondence from me to King County which the County stonewalled. Read the "evidence" of Schneiderman's "threats" yourself. There is none!
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read the correspondence which Schneiderman uses as a justification for his claims of "threats".

    Why did the County wait for thirty-six days to get an injunction?

           The date of this hearing was September 14, 2000. The date of my letter, which Schneiderman claims stopped the County's access to the ELS right-of-way, was August 9, 2000. Why did King County wait for thirty-six days to get an injunction? According to Schneiderman, Knauer, and Marelli, my letter of August 9th stopped all activity on the right-of-way near my home. According to the Prosecutor, on August 9th, County employees began living in fear of me. So, why didn't the County immediately file criminal charges against me and obtain an injunction against me? Why didn't they throw me into jail for my criminal acts? Why, oh why, oh why didn't the County do something if my actions caused fear and stopped its use of my land? Perhaps, the King County Prosecutor was so frozen by fear that he was unable to function for thirty-six days. If County employees were living in fear, as Schneiderman claims, there has to be some reason to explain why the Prosecutor did nothing to protect these King County employees for thirty-six days. The Prosecutor did nothing because his arguments about "fear" and "threats" are contrived lies he manufactured in order to win his lawsuit and threaten me.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    King County threatened me with false felony prosecution.

           The truth is that I had "blown the whistle" on criminal acts committed by the leadership of King County. The County responded using its technique I call "Lie, Stonewall, and Slander". It was not I who was making illegal threats as Schneiderman states in the above paragraph. It was the Executive of King County and the Prosecutor who were threatening me with false felony prosecution in order to get me to stop pressing my demands for an investigation of the County's criminal acts. In his opening statement, Schneiderman's slanderous claim that I illegally threatened County employees was part of this threat to falsely prosecute. The threat of false prosecution can also be seen in King County Executive Ron Sims' letter to me on August 24, 2000. In that letter, Sims lied by stating that I "repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees on the corridor". There was no such statement by me. The reader can verify this by reading all the letters which Sims used to mischaracterize me and to make his false accusation. Those email letters are available at the link below. Additionally, King County manufactured two perjurious declarations designed to characterize me as a criminal. The declarations are filled with identifiable lies and hearsay evidence. Please read the description of Sims' threat to falsely prosecute me and the annotated versions of the two perjurious declarations in order to understand that King County manufactured evidence to use against me in a false felony prosecution.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Understand that King County Executive Ron Sims threatened me with false felony prosecution.

        Read Jennifer Knauer’s slanderous declaration.

        Read Shelley Marelli’s slanderous declaration.

    Where's the Sheriff?

           It is important to understand that Schneiderman states that my "threats" had stopped the County's work on the right-of-way, but he doesn't show that these "threats" were reported to the King County Sheriff. Apparently, the King County Prosecutor was completely unaware there is a Sheriff in King County who is tasked with upholding the peace! There is no evidence that Norm Maleng or his staff ever contacted the Sheriff about these "threats". I was never contacted by the Sheriff with a formal or informal complaint of my "threats". Two perjurious declarations were provided by Schneiderman with this motion for a preliminary injunction against me. Both declarants claim they were living in fear because of my "threats", but neither show any proof that they reported this "fear" to their superiors or to the sheriff. These "threats" and claims of "fear" just suddenly appeared when it was convenient for the Prosecutor to justify this preliminary injunction motion and request for preliminary award of my land to the County.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           While King County apparently never contacted the King County Sheriff, I contacted the Sheriff repeatedly in an attempt to get him to stand up to the criminal acts being committed by the County. I directly contacted Sheriff Reichert twice about the criminal actions of the County. Further, he was copied in other important emails which described the County's participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. Here are some of those emails.
          (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 tax fraud "whistle blower" letter on February 7,2000 was copied to Sheriff Reichert.

        My tax fraud-stonewall-shotgun letter on August 9, 2000 was copied to Sheriff Reichert.

    It was I who was living in fear, not King County employees.

           My lawyer and I took the County's threat of felony prosecution seriously. We were "three steps behind" in this hearing because of the County's threats against me. I had a legitimate fear of what this crooked County was willing to do in order to hide its criminal activity. My lawyer's primary concern was to protect me from the County's threat of false felony prosecution. The August 24, 2000 letter from Ron Sims and the two slanderous declarations, linked above, are proof that the County was willing to manufacture evidence in order to destroy me. But, the most troubling aspect of this hearing is the willingness for Judge Haley to participate in the County's criminal actions with his preliminary injunction and preliminary award of my land to the County.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Open a detailed explanation of the background to this preliminary injunction hearing.



     Mr. Rasmussan says many things in his -- he makes accusations, makes threats to use force and particularly because of the most recent threat regarding a loaded shotgun, we are asking that the Court take this seriously and not dismiss it. My client doesn't feel it has the luxury of saying it's someone who is angry, doesn't mean anything. We need to assume it does mean something and get some sort of protection. King County would greatly appreciate a preliminary injunction that just stops this conduct, that stops Mr. Rasmussan from making threats or threatening to block the corridor, from kicking people off the corridor, that is all we're asking for. We have presented to the Court with declarations the title history, that King County does have a real property interest in the corridor. The title reports verified that. The case law we cited strongly suggest that we will prevail on our position, that what we have is fee simple but that doesn't really matter and the Court need not reach that ultimate issue. If we don't have fee, we have an easement that includes a right to use the corridor and maintain it.

     It is clear and we have presented the documents that we will prevail on our claim we have a fee ownership and we have a legal interest in the corridor and a right not to have the County employees harassed or threatened for being on that corridor. That's all we're asking for at this time, and if the Court has any questions I will be glad to address them.



    Note from John Rasmussen:

    Jump Menu:

         Because of the length of this note, I present this "Jump Menu" which provides an outline of the topics and presents each as a link to that portion of the discussion.

      * King County's tactic: threats and false claim of ownership

      * The East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme:

      * Norm Maleng's "legal theory":

      * The King County Deputy Prosecutor briefed Norm Maleng's "legal theory" to Judge Haley.

      * King County's title expert, Neil DeGoojer, adopted Norm Maleng's "legal theory" in his declaration.

      * Neil DeGoojer's Exhibit 1 contradicts King County's claim of ownership.:

      * Schneiderman and DeGoojer hid King County's opinion that the right-of-way is an easement.

      * My lawyer exposed the dishonesty of King County's argument.

    King County's tactic: threats and false claim of ownership

           Schneiderman claims I threatened King County employees, but provides no instance when any King County employee was threatened. Instead, he provides two perjurious declarations from female King County Managers who make ridiculous undocumented claims based on hearsay and identifiable lies. Then in the above paragraph, Schneiderman claims that "The case law we cited strongly suggest that we will prevail on our position, that what we have is fee simple...". So, this hearing involved a "one-two punch combination" of dishonesty. First, Schneiderman presents lies about me in order to threaten me and diminish me in court. Second, Schneiderman presents the false claim of ownership of my land under the right-of-way. In this section, I deal with the Prosecutor's false claim of ownership. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme:

           As Schneiderman correctly points out in his brief, the Rails-to-Trails Act (railbanking) allows for a party to use the land under a railbanked right-of-way whether that party owns the land or not. When the land under the railbanked right-of-way is not owned by the railroad, a new easement for a trail is required and must be compensated under state property law. In rare cases the original right-of-way deed may be broad enough to allow a trail under the railroad easement. That is not the case with the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E) right-of-way deeds which are discussed on this website. So, it was not necessary for the County to own my right-of-way land in order to use it for a trail, just the requirement that I be compensated for the establishment of the new trail easement. But, in the case of the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way, the issues became greatly complicated because the King County leadership agreed to participate in a federal tax fraud scheme as part of the railbanking transaction.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           Almost all of the land under the ELS right-of-way was easements. But, in order to scam the federal railbanking law, BNSF hired the accounting firm Arthur Andersen to value the right-of-way at several times its actual value and to value is as if BNSF owned all the right-of-way land. The leadership of King County agreed to accept a donation of that land so that BNSF could take a $40 million fraudulent federal tax write-off. Accepting the donation caused King County a big problem. About fourteen SLS&E deeds had already been contested in court. Two, the Burke and Squire right-of-way deeds, had be found to be easements by decisions of the court. About twelve deeds were involved in Lawson v. State (1986). In that case, the Washington State Supreme Court sent the lawsuit back to lower court for resolution of the easement-fee issue. Subsequently, the King County Prosecutor agreed that all of those deeds were easements. So, about fourteen SLS&E deeds had been determined to be easements. No SLS&E deed had been found to grant fee simple title. Yet, the King County Prosecutor, Norm Maleng, agreed to accept a donation of all the land under the ELS right-of-way in exchange for BNSF railbanking and turning over control of the right-of-way to King County. Since the ELS SLS&E deeds were built on a "form deed" which was written by the SLS&E lawyers, the ELS right-of-way deeds used the same language that had been found to grant an easement in the Burke, Squire and Lawson deeds. Norm Maleng knew he was accepting a phony tax donation and needed to make up a legal argument to hide his participation in the crime. Maleng's tactic was to devise a "legal theory" which would explain why all the previous SLS&E deeds granted easements, but all the ELS SLS&E deeds granted fee simple interest. I've named his dishonest tactic "Norm Maleng's 'legal theory'". (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Norm Maleng's "legal theory":

           Norm Maleng's "legal theory" claims that, in Brown v. State of Washington (1996), the Washington State Supreme Court threw out one-hundred years of consistently held legal precedent and establish a new rule to construe railroad deeds. This is how Maleng explains that all the SLS&E deeds construed before Brown were found to be easements, and all the SLS&E deeds construed after Brown, conveyed fee simple interest. This is how Maleng justifies the post-Brown deeds being construed differently, in spite of the fact that they use the same critical granting words as the pre-Brown deeds. The first evidence of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" is in a September 17, 1997 memorandum by King County Senior Deputy Prosecutor Bill Blakney. In this preliminary injunction hearing, Norm Maleng's "legal theory" is briefed in King County's "Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support Thereof" and in the "Declaration of Neil DeGoojer". After this preliminary injunction hearing, the King County Prosecutor continued to brief Norm Maleng's "legal theory" in every court appearance related to the Hilchkanum deed. (It is safe to assume that the Prosecutor used Norm Maleng's "legal theory" as a justification for his claim of ownership in the other ELS SLS&E lawsuits.)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           It's important for the reader to understand the complete dishonesty of Norm Maleng's "legal theory". It is also important for the reader to observe that Norm Maleng's "legal theory" was briefed to each judge who considered the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. But, the most troubling aspect of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" is that each judge adopted this dishonest legal argument in each decision related to the Hilchkanum deed. With that understanding, the reader should realize that the judges who incorporated Norm Maleng's "legal theory" into their opinions became active participants in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. I provide a study of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" in the link below. The study provides a definition and history of the "legal theory". More important, it provides links to the consistent briefing of the "legal theory" by the King County Prosecutor and the adoption of the "legal theory" in each of the corrupt Hilchkanum judicial opinions.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read a detailed explanation of "Norm Maleng's 'legal theory'".

    The King County Deputy Prosecutor briefed Norm Maleng's "legal theory" to Judge Haley.

           King County Deputy Prosecutors Howard Schneiderman and Scott Johnson presented Norm Maleng's "legal theory" in their brief to Judge Haley. Further, the declaration of Neil DeGoojer proposes the same dishonest legal argument. In this section, I discuss Schneiderman's and Johnson's brief. First, here is a link to a photocopy of the King County motion and brief. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "King County's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support Thereof", King County Superior Court, August 31, 2000.

           This motion and brief was presented to Judge Palmer Robinson in King County Superior Court, but was then transferred to Judge Donald Haley after our request for a change of judges. The briefing of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" begins on page 7 under the heading "CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT". Starting at that position in their brief, Schneiderman and Johnson begin to lay out Norm Maleng's "legal theory" as the basis of the County's likelihood of prevailing in its claim of ownership of my land. On Page 8 of this brief, Schneiderman and Johnson use Norm Maleng's "legal theory" as the only justification for the County's claim of ownership. That section of their brief is provided here. (with my emphasis in bold) (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "If a deed conveys a definite strip of land and contains no language limiting the purpose of the conveyance, the deed conveys a fee simple interest in the strip of land regardless of the caption of the deed. Brown v. State, 130 Wn.2d 430,439-440 and 444 (citations omitted). To convey a conditional or reversionary estate, the words in the deed must clearly and expressly indicate such an intent. Brown at 438 (citing King County v. Hanson Inv. Co., 34 Wn.2d 112,208 P.2d 113 (1949).

        In Brown, one of the deeds at issue - the "Simpson deed" - was a conveyance from a landowner to a railroad, and was captioned "Right of Way Deed". Brown at 444. The Simpson deed described a strip of land, but did not expressly convey fee title. Id. Because, the purpose of the conveyance was not limited, the Court found that the deed conveyed fee simple title regardless of the caption. Id.

        In the case at bar, the intent of the parties to the Hilchkanum deed is similarly made clear by the deed itself. The deed describes a strip of land by defining its boundaries in terms of the centerline. The centerline is described with particularity in terms of metes and bounds. There are no words expressly limiting the estate conveyed. In fact, the deed grants the interest conveyed to the grantee's successor and assigns forever without limitation. Moreover, the deed contains no reversionary clause of any kind. "
        [Open "King County's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support Thereof", go to Page 8.]

           The first paragraph in the above quotation provides the legitimate conclusion of the Brown court that if "...a deed conveys a definite strip of land and contains no language limiting the purpose of the conveyance, the deed conveys a fee simple interest in the strip of land...". It's critical to understand that Brown dealt only with deeds which conveyed a "strip of land". Then in the third paragraph, Schneiderman and Johnson present Element 1 of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" with this statement: "The deed describes a strip of land". They refuse to state the truth that the Hilchkanum deed grants a "right of way", and that the grant of a "right of way" to a railroad is held to be an easement in Washington common law. Instead, these slimy liars state that "The deed describes a strip of land" and imply with their statement that the Hilchkanum deed "...conveys a definite strip of land..." in the same manner as the deeds in Brown. These two dishonest King County lawyers intentionally confuse the description of an interest in a strip of land in the Hilchkanum deed with the grant of a "strip of land" in the Brown deeds. That is exactly the tactic used in Element 1 of Norm Maleng's "legal theory".
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           Element 2 of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" is expressed in the third paragraph, quoted above, with the prosecutor's statement that "There are no words expressly limiting the estate conveyed." With these two statements, Schneiderman and Johnson use both elements of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" in their analysis of the Hilchkanum deed, and claim that their dishonest analysis establishes the likelihood of prevailing with their claim of ownership. They conveniently forget to recognize one hundred years of legal precedent which holds that the conveyance of a "right-of-way" in the granting clause of a railroad deed limits the estate granted to an easement. That is the precedent that honest lawyers and honest judges are required to apply to an analysis of Hilchkanum right-of-way deed.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View a study of the meaning of "right-of-way" in a railroad deed.

        View fourteen common law citations holding the grant of a "right of way" to a railroad conveys an easement.

    King County's title expert, Neil DeGoojer, adopted Norm Maleng's "legal theory" in his declaration.

           With Schneiderman's statement "We have presented to the Court with declarations the title history, that King County does have a real property interest in the corridor. The title reports verified that." in his paragraph above, he refers to Neil DeGoojer's declaration and exhibits. DeGoojer, King County's self-proclaimed expert on titles, adopted Norm Maleng's "legal theory" in his dishonest declaration in support of the County's claim to my land. DeGoojer adopts Element 1 of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" with his statement number twelve in his declaration. Here is that statement.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "12. By deed dated May 9th 1882 , Bill Hilchkanum and wife conveyed to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (the "Railway") a continuous 100’ wide strip of land, over one mile long, including what is now at least the area from 1241 E. Lake Sammamish Ln., SE, to 1913 E. Lake Sammamish."
        ["Declaration of Neil DeGoojer"]

           In this statement number twelve in his declaration, DeGoojer describes the Hilchkanum grant to the SLS&E as "...a continuous 100’ wide strip of land". However, when one goes to the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed, one finds that Hilchkanum granted a "right of way". Nowhere in DeGoojer's declaration does he refer to the Hilchkanum grant as a "right of way". Instead, DeGoojer refers to the Hilchkanum right-of-way as a "strip of land" or a "corridor". Since the grant of a "right-of-way" to a railroad has always been found to be an easement in Washington State courts, it is very significant that DeGoojer adopts Element 1 of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" with his statement that Hilchkanum granted a "strip of land" in his right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E in order to understand that a "right of way" is granted.

        View fourteen common law citations holding the grant of a "right of way" to a railroad conveys an easement.

    Neil DeGoojer's Exhibit 1 contradicts King County's claim of ownership.

           DeGoojer's Exhibit 1 is the Commonwealth Title Insurance Policy which was written at the request of the King County Department of Open Space. In his paragraph above, the King County Prosecutor claims that "...King County does have a real property interest in the corridor. The title reports verified that." Yet, when one goes to the Commonwealth Title report that DeGoojer provides as Exhibit 1, one discovers that Commonwealth Title doesn't "verified that" in any way. Commonwealth Title refuses to make that statement in its insurance policy. Here is the portion of the Commonwealth Title Insurance Policy which explains. (with my emphasis)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "9.    Title as vested is pursuant to instrument recorded under Recording No. 13449. Numerous court cases have held that the language contained in the original instruments conveying ownership rights to various railroad entities can be construed as ambiguous, both as to intent and purpose. This Company therefore assumes no liability for any questions which may arise relating to the nature of the interest of Burlington Northern, as successor, until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction makes a final determination on this matter."
        [View DeGoojer Exhibit 1: Commonwealth Title Insurance Policy Go to pdf page 7.]

           So, Senior Deputy King County Prosecutor Howard Schneiderman lied to Judge Haley when he stated "...King County does have a real property interest in the corridor. The title reports verified that." because the Commonwealth Title Insurance Policy specifically contradicts Schneiderman's statement. But, it gets even more dishonest. Schneiderman and DeGoojer omit the King County Department of Open Space analysis of the Commonwealth Title Insurance Policy. The analysis goes even further to contradict the County's claim of "a real property interest". That analysis is discussed next.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Schneiderman and DeGoojer hid King County's opinion that the right-of-way is an easement.

           So we know that Schneiderman lied with his statement "...that King County does have a real property interest in the corridor. The title reports verified that." We know Schneiderman lied because Commonwealth Title ducked the issue. But here is where Schneiderman and DeGoojer kick their dishonesty into overdrive. The Commonwealth Title Insurance Policy was generated for the King County Office of Open Space. In item two of DeGoojer's declaration, he admits that he has worked for the King County Office of Open Space for the last eight years. Commonwealth Title didn't address the issue of easement or fee, but the King County Office of Open Space did. There is no possibility that DeGoojer was unaware of his department's opinion that the land under the ELS right-of-way was probably an easement. There is a document which shows Schneiderman lied in his brief and DeGoojer perjured himself in his declaration. That document is the "King County Office of Open Space, Title Officer’s Review of Title Report", Here is a portion of that document, with a link to the full "Review". The "Review" analyzed the Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company report which DeGoojer presented as Exhibit 1. (with my emphasis)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "Vesting: ...The particular deed under which this property was acquired was entitled "right of way deed" which would probably be deemed to be and easement interest only..."
        [View the "King County Office of Open Space, Title Officer’s Review of Title Report" Go to pdf page 2.]

           Schneiderman and DeGoojer knew it was the opinion of the King County Office of Open Space that BNSF had only an easement in the portion of the right-of-way associated with my lawsuit, but these slimy liars state just the opposite to Judge Haley. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    My lawyer exposed the dishonesty of King County's argument.

           My lawyer pointed out the ridiculous nature of DeGoojer's declaration, but Judge Haley ignored our argument. Here is a statement by my lawyer in response to DeGoojer's perjurious declaration and Schneiderman's claim of ownership. (with my emphasis in bold)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             In order to establish a clear legal or equitable right, the court examines the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits. Rabon at 285. The court must reach the merits of the purely legal issues in order to make that determination, but it should not adjudicate the ultimate merits of the case. Id. at 286. In this case, the plaintiff's record is conclusory, and fraught with unacceptable hearsay. Expert witness DeGoojer provided a declaration that is hopelessly entangled with assumptions, conclusions, and leaps from one conclusion regarding the chain of title to another. The dearth of analysis of deed language is one of the most troubling aspects of the plaintiff's presentation. DeGoojer's testimony should be stricken or ignored as incompetent.

             The interpretation of a deed to determine its effect is a mixed question of law and fact. Veach v. Culp, 92 Wn.2d 570, 573, 599 P.2d 526 (1979). The intent of the parties is a factual question with the legal consequence of that intent dictated by the rules of law. Id. In this case, the defendants should be entitled to an opportunity to present expert witness testimony, something that King County is attempting to preempt by its rush to judgment through CR 65 expedited motion practice. Clearly, this case is not ready for this court's preemption of the defendants' property rights based upon the conclusory statements regarding the thousands of deeds analyzed by DeGoojer, and the conclusions he has generally made about those deeds. How does that relate to the Rasmussen land? For example, did DeGoojer know that the Indian, Mr. Hilchkanum, signed a deed prepared by the railroad, and that it was for a "right of way"? Did DeGoojer know that Mr. Hilchkanum did not even have fee simple patent rights to his homestead until after he had signed the right of way deed prepared by the railroad? Did DeGoojer know that the right of way deed prepared by the railroad for Mr. Hilchkanum's signature described the purposes for the deed, and the described purposes limited the use of the land for purposes of the railroad's location, construction and operation, and there was nothing described in the deed for any future uses such as for a park or trail? Did DeGoojer know that the Washington legislature has required compensation for any taking pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1247 (d)] "Rails to Trails Act? See R.C.W. 64.04.180, 190. No, DeGoojer's conclusory declaration does not cut the mustard to establish a "clear legal or equitable right". DeGoojer's declaration should be ignored or significantly discounted.
        ["Defendants' Brief Opposing Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Bilateral No Contact Order, Change of Venue" Go to pdf page 6.]

           At that time my lawyer and I were unaware that Schneiderman and DeGoojer were withholding the opinion of the King County Office of Open Space, which contradicted their argument. So, my lawyer was pointing out only the failure of DeGoojer to address the issue of easement of fee.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



     THE COURT: I received and read all the material, I am familiar with the issues therein. I'll hear from counsel for the defendant.



    Note from John Rasmussen:

         Here King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley states that he has "read all the material" and is "familiar with the issues". This means that King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley has admitted his knowledge of these issues:

      King County has participated in a federal tax fraud scheme to establish the East Lake Sammamish Trail.

        View the letter that Judge Haley admits he read which first described the federal tax fraud scheme.

        View the section of the letter that Judge Haley admits he read which summarized the corruption in King County.

      King County has stonewalled my efforts to establish a dialogue for fifteen months.

        Judge Haley admits that he read this description of stonewalling and illegal activities by King County.

      King County employee Shelley Marelli has lied in her declaration, slandering me.

        Judge Haley admits he read Shelley Marelli’s slanderous declaration containing hearsay and lies.

      King County employee Jennifer Knauer has lied in her declaration, slandering me.

        Judge Haley admits he read Jennifer Knauer’s slanderous declaration containing hearsay and lies.

      King County lawyer Neil DeGoojer perjured himself, declaring that a "strip of land" was deeded in the original right-of-way deed.

        Judge Haley admits he read DeGoojer’s declaration and took responsibility to be familiar its issues.

      Judge Haley stated he had read my 107 page declaration, detailing stonewalling, violation of civil rights, criminal activity, and federal tax fraud by King County.

        Judge Haley admits he read my 107 page declaration. (Declaration of John Rasmussen.)

      Judge Haley stated he had read my wife’s declaration, which directly challenged the hearsay in Jennifer Knauer’s declaration.

        Judge Haley admits he read the Declaration of Nancy Rasmussen.

         Judge Haley stated that he had "received and read all the material", and that he was "familiar with the issues therein". It would have taken hours to review the material and be familiar with all the issues. If Haley had taken all of that time to study the material, and he was so familiar with the issues, he should have been questioning Schneiderman and Johnson about their participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. A legitimate judge in a legitimate court would not allow a hearing, or trial, to proceed in the face of such blatant dishonesty and criminal activity by King County. But, this is King County, Washington.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



     MR. SANDLIN: May it please the Court, Counsel, Mr. Rasmussan, staff members:

     Your Honor, we agree with the County as much as it says we want to alleviate the fear of employees. Since you have read Mr. Rasmussan and Mrs. Rasmussan's declarations under penalty of perjury you can see, not taking everything out of context, that there were no threats. If there were threats here then Hochstatter, gubernatorial candidate, talking about preserving property rights is threatened when Gary Locke took umbrage at it. I don't necessarily have the same political views as Brother Hochstatter does, however we looked at all the e-mails and it was an expression of the Second Amendment right to bear arms and that's it, it's old business. He has voluntarily waived his right to bear arms. He removed all arms from his property and his premises and his possession and he for the duration of this lawsuit is suggesting to the Court that he not have access to any such weapons and he not have contact with any County employees. We would like that to be bilateral; whoever hears this case at trial, we haven't even filed our answer yet, these things have been going a hundred miles an hour and as a footnote, the only reason I am in that, I was a civil rights lawyer in eastern Washington, that's how it came to me. The only thing we think that the County is reasonably entitled to is an assurance to take away the false fears of its employees there is any harm here, and a no contact order that is bilateral will do that. We did process an order that will effectuate that, a copy I can't tell, to Your Honor. The County is asking you to rush to judgment about whose legal rights should prevail. I am showing you the "no trespassing for any purpose having to do with ELST" that is placed at my client's property boundaries. That has been there or a similar sign for 15 months, that's the status quo.

     I would respectfully suggest what the County says -- we have a title report, therefore title. In there is the flaw of their legal position. Having some title officer conclude that title is clear is no proof of title. Look at the history that requires an evidentiary hearing. Look at the conduct of the parties to establish the status quo. Are there immediate irreparable injuries? These parties have been at a stalemate over 15 months. Keep the status quo, don't give the County or Mr. Rasmussan the upper hand, stop the concern of the County. There are no threats, thereby don't go so far and leave the presumption that the County has proved up title. Judge, we are talking about an 11 mile corridor of some of the most valuable land on the waterfront of Lake Sammamish. We are talking about two to 300 million dollars of potential damages and the County wants you to just benignly issue an order by inference suggests they have either a right of way or title, and my briefing shows and I use their briefing as a skeleton to show you that in just using their own case law they haven't proved they should get any more than the injunctive relief that is reasonable.

     The Court has pecuniary power to fashion any orders reasonably necessary before trial and we suggest that they are asking for too much.



    Note from John Rasmussen:

    My lawyer's primary concern was to protect me from false felony prosecution.

           As one can see from my lawyer's statement above, we were running scared. My lawyer and I were afraid of false felony prosecution. The threat of false prosecution can be seen in an analysis of King County Executive Ron Sims' letter to me on August 24, 2000. In that letter, Sims lied by stating that I "repeatedly threatened to shoot County employees on the corridor". He provided no proof of such a threat because it never happened. Sims then threatened to falsely prosecute me with his statement that by "threatening to harm County employees, you may have committed the crime of harassment, RCW 9A.46.020." and Sims' statement that he had "forwarded [my] e-mails to the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office for their review and possible criminal charges.". Ron Sims lied about threats that I never made and then threatened me with false felony prosecution. Use the link below for a more complete explanation of this threat against me by Ron Sims.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Understand that King County Executive Ron Sims threatened me with false felony prosecution.

           Besides Ron Sims' threat, the absolute lies presented by Schneiderman and Johnson in the perjurious declarations by Knauer and Marelli was additional proof to me that King County had manufactured evidence designed to harm me. Of course, King County had already intentionally harmed my family and my neighbors by participating the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and then stealing our land to cover-up its crime. I had plenty to fear from the Ron Sims and Norm Maleng.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read Jennifer Knauer’s slanderous declaration which manufactured evidence against me.

        Read Shelley Marelli’s slanderous declaration which manufactured evidence against me.

           If I was falsely prosecuted, and the perjurious declarations were believed by a jury, I would lose my livelihood and my freedom. The Class C felony these slimy liars were threatening would put me in jail for a crime I never committed. I had everything to lose in a very corrupt King County Court system, and these liars had nothing to lose. My lawyer and I were fiercely backpedaling to avoid King County's threatened false felony prosecution.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           As I stated above, this hearing involved a "one-two punch combination" of dishonesty. First, Schneiderman presented very personal false claims about me in order to threaten me and diminish me in court. Second, Schneiderman presented the false claim of ownership of my land under the right-of-way. One can see our reaction to the false personal claims against me in my lawyer's conciliatory statements above.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



     MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: We have established by declaration that we have a real property interest verified by title-- title research-- whereas the position of the defendants in this case is totally unsupported by anything like that. We're not asking to be allowed to do something different. We are not out there trying to change the lay of the land, we aren't seeking a building permit at this time. We are simply saying that County employees should not be threatened. They have a right to be on the corridor, conduct their regular work but merely asking that the Rasmussans be restrained, and asking the Court if it needs to re-review Mr. Rasmussan's e-mails, it clearly contains threats to use force, speak of somebody getting hurt, and as I said, the most recent one in our opinion really crossed the line by repeatedly referring to a loaded shotgun.

     It's interesting Mr. Rasmussan's counsel admits Mr. Rasmussan did in fact have firearms, so I don't think we should presume that his threats were hollow. This is something that is very serious, my client is afraid to send its employees out in that area because of the comments of both Mr. Rasmussan and his wife. Mrs. Rasmussan repeatedly warned my client --be careful about my husband, he may be violent. She now denies making those comments but we have presented the declarations and the e-mails and they speak for themselves.

     If the Court has any questions on the legalities of the case, I will be glad to answer those.



    Note from John Rasmussen:

    The "one-two punch" of dishonesty:

           I get both "jabs" in Schneiderman's "one-two punch combination" of dishonesty in his statements above. Schneiderman presents the false claim of ownership of my land under the right-of-way. Then, he makes false claims about me in order to threaten me and diminish me before Judge Haley. His dishonest tactic worked very well!
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    A quit claim deed does not convey statutory warranty title:

           In his first statement above, Schneiderman states that King County has a "real property interest verified by title". But, when one looks at King County's deed, he discovers that King County's "real property interest" is based on a quit claim deed to the ELS right-of-way. This means that BNSF granted whatever interest it had in the ELS right-of-way to King County. Since BNSF had mostly easements and therefore had no ownership of the land under the right-of-way, the quit claim deed granted very little to King County. If BNSF actually owned the land under the ELS right-of-way, it would have granted title using a statutory warranty deed. It didn't do that because it didn't own the land. There was no warranty that BNSF granted fee simple title with its quit claim deed. Schneiderman claims, or implies, that King County has a "real property interest verified by title", but that is not what BNSF granted.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           Since BNSF instructed Arthur Andersen to value the ELS right-of-way as if BNSF owned the underlying land, you would think that BNSF would have provided a warranty deed to King County. BNSF was going to make the claim to the IRS that BNSF donated the land under the right-of-way to King County. But, in its actual deed to King County it conveyed only a quit claim deed. Don't you just despise crooked lawyers? Linked directly below are the sale agreements from BNSF to middleman TLC (The Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County) to King County. These sale agreements show that King County was not granted a warranty deed. Also, a link is provided to the BNSF appraisal. Go to pdf page eight of the appraisal to view the instruction which directs the appraiser (the disgraced accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, LLC) to value the ELS right-of-way as if BNSF owns all the underlying land. The reader is witnessing King County, TLC, and BNSF committing federal tax fraud with these documents.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Sale agreement BNSF-TLC. (Quit Claim Deed)

        Sale agreement TLC-King County. (Quit Claim Deed)

        View the Arthur Andersen ELS appraisal. BNSF instructs the accounting firm to value the ELS right-of-way as if BNSF owns the underlying land on (pdf Page 8).

           So, Schneiderman states that King County has a "real property interest verified by title", but when the reader looks at the documents which establish that "interest", the reader finds that there is no warranted interest. Instead, the reader finds that BNSF granted whatever King County could claim it owned, based on the power King County had in the courts to establish that interest. That put the pressure on King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley to support King County's dishonest claim. With Haley's preliminary award of my land to King County under these circumstances, Judge Haley sold out his honor and oath as a judge to uphold the Constitution and the law.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    After false claim of ownership, another cheap shot at me:

           After claiming a quit claim deed is a statutory warranty deed in his dishonest argument, this slimy King County lawyer, Howard Schneiderman, presents double hearsay to the court as a statement of fact. Schneiderman claimed that my wife "repeatedly warned [King County] --be careful about my husband, he may be violent". Schneiderman was a Senior Deputy King County Prosecutor and yet he presented a double hearsay declaration as fact in a court of law. The question is who's more at fault for letting this happen: Schneiderman (who is a slimy liar), Judge Haley (who knew hearsay was not allowed), my lawyer (who did not stand up to protest) or me (a man who was out of his element in court, but knew Schneiderman was lying to the judge)? This worthless piece of crap, Schneiderman, put words into my wife's mouth that were never there. My wife never "repeatedly warned [King County] --be careful about my husband, he may be violent" as liar Schneiderman states above. The reader needs to study Jennifer Knauer's slanderous declaration, and my wife's rebuttal, to understand the dishonesty that Schneiderman was presenting in his statement above. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Open Jennifer Knauer’s declaration at the position in which Knauer perjures herself with her double hearsay statement.

        View the Declaration by Nancy Rasmussen. Go to page 3 to view her rebuttal of Knauer's double hearsay statement.



     THE COURT: The law, in general, allows for preliminary injunction if the injunction that is sought is as it relates to property. If the Court goes through the process of balancing whether or not they are asking for it as a legal right, whether or not the only remedy is a temporary remedy and whether or not the requesting party would be likely to prevail at trial, in a sense this is somewhat a little different, it's asking to prevent an action that the defendants deny doing. I have always taken the position if you aren't going to do it, what is the harm in the preliminary injunction. That's not the basis of the Court's decision. Also if the Court were to grant a preliminary injunction based upon the information presented the Court and not determine that the party seeking the relief will prevail at trial, that comes at an expedited trial, I think the Court could be satisfied. The Court's decision, based upon all the information that the County presented, is that the County is entitled to a preliminary injunction for the reason I have indicated.

     It's not the Court's decision that a person does not have a right to bear arms, what the Court is talking about is cease to threat of the legal right to bear arms. The County could continue doing whatever it has been doing with respect to the property and when we get to the merits of the lawsuit, whether or not the County establishes that it has fee simple or has an easement; if the County prevails in that action, the Court will enter a judgment on behalf of the defendants but that comes at the merits of the lawsuit. As soon as the defendants put in their answer, we will give this matter a expedited hearing.

     It is clear to the Court the County has established all the necessary ingredients to get a preliminary injunction. I will grant the relief to the County.



    Note from John Rasmussen:

         For Judge Haley to declare that "the County has established all the necessary ingredients to get a preliminary injunction", it requires that Haley believed all the questionable statements and sworn declarations by the County, and disbelieved all the statements and declarations by our side. If he read all the materials and understood all the issues, as Judge Haley stated, then he said a mouthful when he declared the necessary ingredients were established by the County. In a legitimate court of law, the disagreements in the declarations would have been resolved before any of them were accepted as "necessary ingredients" to issue an injunction.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         There is no question that Judge Haley’s greatest service to the people of King County was voluntarily retiring from the bench, if in fact his retirement was voluntary.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



     MR. SANDLIN: Thank you. I have a proposed order that, as I understand, that is what you just said because we agree there should be a cease of threats or perceived threats, but I understand that you said the County can continue to do whatever it claims it was doing and that interrupts -- I understand that to mean the status quo concerning the rights of the parties concerning the land until we have an expedited hearing.

     If you look at the proposed order by the County, you will see that the County is asking you to make dispositive rulings about what they can do on that land. Now we would ask that you remain silent about that. Obviously, if they come on the land, they are coming on it without any contact with my client but for them to ask for your permission, that suggests they are changing the status quo because for 15 months since they first started Mr. Rasmussan has --

     THE COURT: What is your objection to the order that the County has proposed? What part of the order are you disagreeing with?

     MR. SANDLIN: The order they give you says for purposes of maintenance of the trail and that's a mouthful because they have not established a clear legal right to remain.

     THE COURT: It is ordered that the defendant must cease and desist with any activity that interferes with the County's use of the railway corridor.



    Note from John Rasmussen:

         Here, Judge Haley granted the County an easement for trail purposes without compensation to me for the taking. That’s a nice gift to the County! When he was asked to confirm that unauthorized grant, found below, he refused to clarify the meaning of his words.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         A "hearing" implies both sides of the issue are to be heard. This wasn’t a hearing, it was a predetermined preliminary injunction by this dishonest judge. It was a statement to my lawyer and me that I would have a similar experience in the rest of the proceedings before Judge Donald Haley. It means our request for change of venue would be denied by this dishonest judge, so that he could control this case in his court. That’s how justice gets done in King County, Washington.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



     MR. SANDLIN: Period is fine. If it goes on for maintenance or rehabilitation or development of a trail, which if you look at the order, it's in there; any reference to the trail, Mr. Rasmussan himself doesn't even address the railway right of way, he addresses for any purpose to do with the East Lake Sammamish trail. That's what the order must be purged of.

     MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Your Honor, King County purchased the rail corridor for the purpose eventually of building a trail. When we speak of the corridor and we speak of the trail, we are speaking of the same thing. They are now asking you to revisit your ruling and rule that the County can't maintain.

     THE COURT: I think I indicated the basis of the Court's ruling. If the County has been doing things that is improper, the County will pay damages to the defendants, that's what the merits of the lawsuit is about.

     MR. SANDLIN: Exactly.

     MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

     THE COURT: If there are no preliminary matters -- is this a preassigned case?

     MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.

     MR. SANDLIN: We have civil Rule 12 matters that we need to bring up. We have not answered the lawsuit yet but we have venue issues. We also have some other issues because of an administrative claim that needs to be filed. We have a sixty day fuse before we can really fully answer the County because of a tort claim. We will probably be asking for venue issues to be addressed and also a stay of any proceeding pending that sixty-day window so we have exhausted our remedies.

     MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Counsel submitted a motion for change of venue and we did respond to that and we could argue that now as well.

     MR. SANDLIN: There is no motion before you. I briefed it and I did ask in the brief for that relief but I have not noted the motion yet, it's not before you.

     THE COURT: Those motions are made without oral argument, it's not a dispositive motion, all those matters you check with my bailiff and she will pick out a Friday that is available and those motions are made without oral argument. The moving party brings the motion with sufficient notice and then the other side has a time by which it will respond and a limit as to the reply. The Court will get that information, read it and then rule upon it and you present a proposed order on any motion, the resisting party presents a proposed order, the Court will sign either one of the orders and send it to you by mail. Those are noted for argument on the Friday calendar without oral arguments.

     MR. SANDLIN: One last thing, Judge, you are not making a finding concerning the status quo.

     THE COURT: The order speaks for itself.

     MR. SANDLIN: It doesn't, it's ambiguous, it has nothing in there about whether Mr. Rasmussan is status quo where the County did not come on its property for the trail.

     THE COURT: You can advise your client to do whatever the interpretation of the order is, that's your professional decision. You read the order, you advise your client.



    Note from John Rasmussen:

         Judge Haley refused to explain his preliminary injunction when specifically asked to define its meaning. Instead, he left me in the position that I had no idea if he recognized my right to defend my property from an uncompensated trail taking. Of course, if I had then tried to stop the County’s trespass on my land for trail purposes, I believe that Haley would have ruled against me for not understanding the ruling he refused to define or explain. I probably would have ended up in jail for disobeying his vague and ill defined order.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         As a result of Haley’s statement that "The order speaks for itself" and his refusal to explain our specific question concerning status quo, I was afraid to go on my own right-of-way land to defend my property rights. Folks go to court to get a resolution of their legal questions, not to be intentionally confused by the judge.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         We immediately filed to move the case to federal court to get away from this dishonest judge. As it turned out, that was a move "out of the frying pan, and into the fire".
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



     MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.

* * *

STATE OF WASHINGTON
SS
COUNTY OF KING

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, CHERYL D. ANDERSON, Official Court Reporter for the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, do hereby certify:

That the foregoing proceedings were taken by me stenographically and later reduced to writing under my personal supervision;

That the transcript contains a full, true and accurate record of the proceedings that occurred at the time and place stated therein.

Cheryl D. Anderson, RPR, CSR

Official Court Reporter #D504PC



    Summary by John Rasmussen:

    One of the saddest moments of my life:

           As I stated near the top of this document, attending this hearing was one of the saddest moments in my life. I was sitting in court and having slimy, lying, Senior King County Deputy Prosecutor Howard Schneiderman mischaracterize my as some sort of criminal, when he and the judge knew that his accusations were false, and his declarations were contrived perjury. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The "one-two punch" of dishonesty:

           Senior King County Deputy Prosecutor Howard Schneiderman presented his argument as a "one-two punch combination" of dishonesty. Schneiderman presented a false claim of ownership of my land under the right-of-way. Then, Schneiderman presented lies about me in order to threaten me and diminish me before Judge Haley.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The false claim of ownership:

           Schneiderman claimed that "...King County does have a real property interest in the corridor. The title reports verified that." But, when the reader goes to the title report, he finds that Schneiderman lied. The reader finds that the Commonwealth Title Insurance Policy states that Commonwealth Title "...assumes no liability for any questions which may arise relating to the nature of the interest of Burlington Northern, as successor, until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction makes a final determination on this matter." But, even more damaging, Schneiderman and DeGoojer dishonestly withheld the opinion of the King County Office of Open Space that the Hilchkanum deed "...was entitled "right of way deed" which would probably be deemed to be and easement interest only...". Further, both Schneiderman and DeGoojer presented elements of Norm Maleng's "legal theory", the dishonest legal argument that the Washington State Supreme Court had thrown out one hundred years of consistently upheld legal precedent in Brown v. State of Washington (1996).
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    King County's threat of false felony prosecution:

           King County manufactured evidence that it threatened to use against me in a false felony prosecution. In order to diminish me in court and in order to threaten me with false felony prosecution, King County Executive Ron Sims attributed threatening statements to me which I never made. Since he had stonewalled my attempt to communicate with the County for many months, the only basis of his slanderous claim was my unanswered letters. In the expanded background section on this webpage, I provide all those letters and show that I never made that threats which Sims claims. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           Senior King County Deputy Prosecutor Howard Schneiderman claims that I made illegal threats also. To support his claim, he provides two declarations from female King County Managers. When one reads their declarations claiming threats to King County employees, one realizes that no King County employee is named. There is no date given for any alleged threat. There is no location given for any alleged threat. There is no description of the words that the County claims I used to express a threat. Most significant, there is no declaration made by any King County employee claiming that I threatened him. Instead, Schneiderman provides two declarations filled with hearsay and identifiable lies.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           King County did not justify its claim that I illegally threatened any King County employee. It had no claim because I never illegally threatened to harm anyone. Rather, King County demonstrated that it was willing to manufacture evidence in order to slander and harm me. This threat by King County to falsely prosecute me for a felony had a great effect to quiet my lawyer and me in this hearing.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Judge Donald Haley:

           I believe that King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng or King County Executive Ron Sims got to Judge Haley and briefed him on their needs before this hearing. All the information presented by Schneiderman and Johnson was tainted in one way or another. For Haley to rule in favor of the County, his ruling had to be predetermined. I wonder if there is even one honest judge in King County.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    My Lawyer and I goofed:

           If I had understood the corruption in King County government and the willingness of judges to hide the County's criminal behavior, my lawyer and I would have done things differently. I believed that we would get a fair hearing in King County Superior Court. I was wrong. I believed that eventually the legal system corrects the dishonesty and errors of individual judges. I was wrong. This website traces the cover-up of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme through the federal court system to the United States Supreme Court. The sister lawsuit, Ray v. King County, took the same issue of property rights to the Washington State Supreme Court, and suffered the same denial of constitutional rights and violation of common law. This website documents the complete failure of our judicial system. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

























































Reference


Background leading to the September 14, 2000 Preliminary Injunction Hearing
in King County v. Rasmussen:

Stonewalling and lies:

         This preliminary injunction hearing 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. The declarations of Jennifer Knauer and 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. Please read the annotated declarations 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 Jennifer Knauer. Slander, Hearsay, and Identifiable Lies.

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

         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 declarations by Jennifer Knauer and Shelly Marelli, the reader might 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 which is presented in annotated form on this webpage. (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 this annotated hearing and its annotated declarations. 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 the declarations by Knauer and Marelli are chilling proof of the County's willingness to manufacture evidence to use in a false felony 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 Jennifer Knauer’s slanderous declaration in this preliminary injunction hearing.

    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.