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

A Letter to the Residents of East Lake Sammamish
December 2014


        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Introduction:

         Land worth tens of millions of dollars has been stolen from East Lake Sammamish residents as a result of King County's participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. The crime against ELS residents will continue as King County charges you to use the land it has stolen from you. A few have received compensation, or will receive compensation, but the majority have lost their land and the right to compensation because of intentional criminal acts by politicians and lawyers in your King County government. But, the blame goes further. Judges covered-up the tax fraud scheme and illegally awarded your land to the County. This includes the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    How corrupt and dishonest does government need to be before you stand up for your rights?

         My name is John Rasmussen. I discovered and exposed the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme in early 2000. It has been covered-up and ignored for fifteen years. In order to protect those who committed this crime, King County has used its influence in the courts to cover-up its criminal act. King County has used your tax dollars to defraud you. How does that feel? The critical factor in King County's "success" has been the willingness of ELS residents to not stand up for their rights. It's been a tradition in America for folks to stand up for their rights and to protect their families from corruption. Why have the ELS residents allowed King County and crooked judges to steal a significant amount of their wealth? Why have the ELS residents allowed crooked judges to steal their property rights?
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read my February 2, 2000 notification of the ELS federal tax fraud scheme to Ron Sims and the King County council.

    A few people are receiving compensation for the taking involved in Railbanking the East Lake Sammamish trail.

         I've recently learned that someone, or a group, is organizing a new claim for compensation from the taking involved in the establishment of the East Lake Sammamish trail. I don't have the details. As I understand it, this is in response to news that a minority of ELS property owners have received, or will receive, a relatively large amount of money from a taking claim they filed with the United States Court of Federal Claims about ten years ago. I think it is wonderful that these folks are receiving compensation, and I congratulate them for working more than ten years to get this compensation. But, I have this question for those receiving compensation. Since Federal Judge Marian Horn decided the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway deeds associated with your ELS properties granted easements, does King County now acknowledge you own the land under your right-of-way? I'm certain the County still claims it owns your land. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You got paid, but you didn't get your land back. Right? You got money, but you haven't stood up for your property rights. Are you satisfied?
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    I believe time has expired for new claims to the United States Court of Federal Claims.

         I'm not a lawyer and not familiar with the rules associated with Railbanking claims to the United States Court of Federal Claims. I believe the deadline for those claims passed many years ago. Anyone wanting to get legal advice about that issue could call the lawyer for those who have, or will, receive compensation. His name is John M. Groen of Groen Stephens & Klinge LLP, Bellevue, Wash. Assuming the deadline has passed, those residents of ELS who believe they should be compensated will not be able to file a claim against the U.S. Government based on the Railbanking taking. But, perhaps there could still be a claim against King County, the State of Washington, or the federal government based on the tax fraud scheme which caused King County to lie to its ELS residents and steal their land, and the criminal actions by federal and State judges. That will not happen unless the tax fraud scheme and criminal actions are made public. That will not happen unless those defrauded along East Lake Sammamish stand up for their rights.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    For those now seeking compensation, it is important to understand the underlying facts involved in establishing the trail.

         I believe that those who haven't received compensation should also be paid. I'm one of them. For those who now seek payment, it is important to understand the underlying facts involved in the establishment of the ELS trail. That fact is that the East Lake Sammamish trail was obtained because King County agreed to participate in a federal tax fraud scheme. It was a win-win as far as King County was concerned. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) used Arthur Andersen (before Enron and WorldCom) to get a greatly inflated valuation for the ELS right-of-way. This gave BNSF a $40 million tax write-off, a gift from King County and the American taxpayers. King County won, too. King County got the ELS right-of-way for a trail. But, because King County accepted a "gift" of all the land under the ELS right-of-way, it wasn't really a win-win. Actually, it was a win-win-lose. Of course the "lose" was for the folks who actually owned the land under the right-of-way. Generally, these are the folks who have the right-of-way in their front or backyard along Lake Sammamish.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         When land is taken for a trail, you would think the municipality (King County) would be very helpful and considerate to the folks who are harmed. But, instead of King County helping the folks along East Lake Sammamish obtain compensation from the United States Court of Federal Claims, King County turned its resources against these people. Since, King County had accepted the phony tax donation of the land under the right-of-way it needed to claim ownership of that land, or else be held responsible for participating in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme. So, the folks who owned the land under the ELS right-of-way got the treatment described below...a campaign of lies and misinformation in the newspapers, and federal and State judges changing the Washington State law governing the construing of railroad right-of-way deeds in order to protect the participants in the tax fraud scheme.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         So, if I understand it right, now there is some action along East Lake Sammamish for those defrauded by the County to ask for compensation. Good luck! Many of those who participated in the tax fraud are powerful folks in Washington State. They will fight any compensation being paid to ELS residents in order to hide their criminal act. Sadly, this includes a number of federal and State judges including the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

    King County repeatedly lied about the ownership of the land under the ELS right-of-way.

         In 1998, the leadership of King County accepted the phony tax donation of all the land under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) right-of way along East Lake Sammamish (ELS) as part of the Railbanking transaction. As explained above, this phony land donation enabled BNSF to take a fraudulent $40 million tax write-off. By participating in the tax fraud, King County obtained the right-of-way to build a trail along the lake. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and his senior staff knew that BNSF didn't own this land, and that the "donation" was a fraud. This fact is discussed in the next paragraph. In order to cover-up its crime, King County ran a campaign of lies in the courts and the newspapers. Knowing it was a lie, the County repeatedly claimed that all the land under the ELS right-of-way had been granted in fee simple title to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E) in 1887, and had been legally donated to King County by BNSF. BNSF was successor in interest to the SLS&E. Please view three newspaper articles which show this false claim of ownership by the County.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "But David Eldred, a county attorney, said he has no doubt the county owns the entire right of way."
      (Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter, September 28, 1999)

      "'I don't think there's any doubt the county owns the property,' Eldred said. 'Our determination of ownership is based on a thorough review of the records and the law.'"
      (Eastside Journal, October 1,1999)

      "The county, which purchased the 12-mile stretch of old Burlington Northern right-of-way from The Land Conservancy in 1998, claims the railroad had full ownership of the land."
      (Eastside Journal, June 3, 2000)

    King County knew that the donation of East Lake Sammamish land was fraudulent.

         In the above Eastside Journal article, King County prosecutor David Eldred describes a "thorough review of the records and the law." This is simply a lie by one of the crooked lawyers in the King County Prosecutor's office. The truth is that the "records and the law" showed that King County owned very little of the land under the ELS right-of-way. In 1998, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng had previously been involved in two lawsuits which involved the question of whether 1887 Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E) deeds granted easements or fee simple title of the land underlying the SLS&E right-of-way. Norm Maleng lost both of these legal decisions which involved about thirteen SLS&E right-of-way deeds. These two decisions are: Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990). All of the SLS&E deeds in Lawson and Squire were determined to be easements. In Lawson, the King County Prosecutor agreed that all the deeds conveyed right-of-way easements. In Squire, the court decided the deed conveyed an easement. In spite of every prior SLS&E deed being determined to convey an easement, Maleng claimed that all of the SLS&E deeds under the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way granted fee simple title of the land. Since he had advised the County to accept all of this land as a tax write-off gift from BNSF, Norm Maleng need this lie to protect himself from federal tax fraud prosecution. But King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng had a big problem. His problem was that the deeds which were determined to convey easements in Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990) have identical granting language to a number of East Lake Sammamish SLS&E right-of-way deeds which Maleng claimed granted fee simple title of the land. This includes the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed, which is the deed associated with my former ELS property. In these SLS&E deeds, the granting language is the critical factor in determining they convey an easement. Unlike your King County prosecutors, the facts don't lie. Read below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand the Basic Rules to Construe a Deed.

    Compare these deeds to understand the intentional criminal act King County committed against its ELS residents.

         How could Maleng claim that ELS deeds, which have identical granting language to deeds which had previously been determined to be easements in 1986 and 1990, be determined to grant fee simple title in 1998? The following deeds show the fact that East Lake Sammamish SLS&E deeds have identical granting language to deeds which had previously been determined to be easements in Lawson and Squire. As stated in the paragraph above, in these SLS&E deeds the granting language is the determining factor in understanding whether an easement or fee simple title is conveyed. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and his staff were very aware of these facts when, on Maleng's advice, King County accepted the phony tax donation from BNSF.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "...I do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company
      a right of way..."
      View the Bargquist right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.
          This SLS&E deed was agreed by the King County Prosecutor to be an EASEMENT in Lawson v. State (1986).

      "...we do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company
      a right of way..."
      View the Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.
          This SLS&E deed was construed by the court to be an EASEMENT in King County v. Squire (1990).

         The Bargquist and Squire right-of-way deeds to the SLS&E, shown above, were determined to convey easements just a few years before King County declared all the SLS&E right-of-way deeds along East Lake Sammamish conveyed fee simple title of the land under the rights-of-way. The deeds below are all from the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way. Comparing the deeds below to the two above shows how dishonest King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and his staff were in claiming all the East Lake Sammamish deeds granted fee simple title to the Railway.

      "...we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company
      a right of way..."
      View the East Lake Sammamish Tahalthkut right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.
          This SLS&E deed was construed to be an EASEMENT in Berres v. US (2012).

      "...we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company
      a right of way..."
      View the East Lake Sammamish Davis right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.
          This SLS&E deed was construed to be an EASEMENT in Berres v. US (2012).

      "...we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company
      a right of way..."
      View the East Lake Sammamish Sbedzuse right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.
          This SLS&E deed was construed to be an EASEMENT in Berres v. US (2012).

      "...we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company
      a right of way..."
      View the East Lake Sammamish Yonderpump right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.
          This SLS&E deed was construed to be an EASEMENT in Berres v. US (2012).

      "...we do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company
      a right of way..."
      View the East Lake Sammamish Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.
          Determined an EASEMENT in Berres v. US (2012), Determined FEE SIMPLE in King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and Ray v. King County (2004).

    King County v. Squire (1990) established a precedent which absolutely destroys King County's claim to fee simple title of the land under the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way. So, Squire was ignored and intentionally misrepresented by King County and the judges.

         In King County v. Squire (1990) the court concluded that the Squire granting clause "...strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...". Based on that granting language, the Squire court determined that the 1887 Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E conveyed an easement. The Squire opinion is binding precedent in King County and Division One courts. So, why did Washington State judges not adhere to that binding precedent when construing the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way deeds? The misrepresentation of King County v. Squire (1990) was critical for King County and the "Hilchkanum judges" who resolved the Ray and Rasmussen lawsuits because the granting language of the Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E is identical to many of the East lake Sammamish SLS&E deeds.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Briefly, King County v. Squire (1990) construes Watson Squire's 1887 right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. Watson Squire was twelfth governor of Washington Territory and one of Washington State's first U.S. Senators. Squire was a lawyer. The Squire opinion presents the material portions of the Squire right-of-way deed, shown below this paragraph. The words provided by the railroad are published in normal font. The changes and additions made to the deed by Governor Squire are published in bold font. The granting words, which were written by the SLS&E lawyers in the Squire deed, are identical to the granting words in SLS&E deeds along East Lake Sammamish. The most significant addition by Governor Squire was the reverter language ("...so long as said land is used as a right-of-way by said railway Company...") in the habendum. The Squire court judges speculated about what Squire intended with the addition of his reverter clause, and concluded that the "...so long as..." language reiterated the intention to convey an easement, which had been expressed in the words of the granting clause. Just read King County v. Squire (1990) to understand that conclusion.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "On March 29, 1887, Watson and Ida Squire executed a deed granting a half-mile right of way to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company. The material portion of the deed reads as follows with the handwritten additions by Mr. Squire set forth in boldface type:

        In Consideration of the benefits and advantages to accrue to us from the location, construction and operation of the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, in the County of King, in Washington Territory, we do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway a right-of-way Fifty (50) feet in width through said lands in said County, described as follows, to-wit: [legal description]. Such right-of-way strip to be twenty-five (25) feet in width on each side of the center line of the railway track as located across the said lands by the Engineer of said Railway Company, which location is described as follows, to-wit [description.] . . . .

        To Have and to Hold the said premises, with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, and to its successors and assigns forever or so long as said land is used as a right-of-way by said railway Company, Expressly reserving to said grantors their heirs and assigns all their riparian rights and water front rights on the shores of Lake Washington. And this grant is upon the condition that said railway shall be completed over said lands on or before January 1st, 1888...."
        [King County v. Squire (1990)]

         King County v. Squire (1990) was binding precedent for Judges Cox and Schindler in Ray v. King County (2004), but they refused to acknowledge the findings of the Squire judges and they refused their duty to apply the Squire opinion as binding precedent. Instead, Cox and Schindler declared that "For the reasons we discuss later in this opinion, Squire is not controlling, merely instructive.". Then, later in their criminal act from the bench [Ray v. King County (2004)], Cox states "While noting that the language of the granting clause could be understood to convey either a fee or an easement, [the Squire] court concluded that the granting clause and habendum clause, read together, suggested that 'the 'so long as' language was inserted by Squire to preclude the claim that he conveyed a fee simple to the railroad...". It is impossible for an honest judge or lawyer to read King County v. Squire and conclude that the Squire judges understood the granting clause could convey either an easement or fee simple title. That is a ridiculous lie by Judge Cox. The truth is that the Squire judges decided the Squire granting clause "...strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...". This is so obvious that one can only conclude that Judge Cox intentional lied. The only thing more disgusting than this criminal act by judges Cox and Schindler, is the willingness of the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court to allow these obvious lies to stand, on appeal. Judge Cox also states that the only reason the Squire deed was found to be an easement was because of the "...so long as..." language Governor Squire added to the habendum. He dishonestly claimed that the deed would convey fee simple title of the right-of-way land if the "...so long as..." language had not been added in the habendum. This is a critical and intentional lie by Judge Cox because the Squire court judges concluded that the "...so long as..." language reiterated the intention to convey an easement which had been expressed in the Squire granting clause with the words "...the language in the granting clause strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...". Reiterate means repeat, reaffirm, reassert, rephrase, retell, say again, state again. Is it possible that judges Ronald Cox, Ann Schindler, and the judges of the Washington State Supreme court were not able to understand the word "reiterate"? No! It's obvious that they believe they are powerful judges who can misstate and ignore legal precedent and publish ridiculous lies in their opinions without being held accountable. In this case their lies have resulted in the theft of millions of dollars in land value from innocent families along East Lake Sammamish.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Study the links below in order to understand that one hundred years of consistently held legal precedent was applied in the construing of the Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, and ignored by the Hilchkanum judges who dishonestly settled the Ray and Rasmussen lawsuits.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

      View forty-four citations explaining the meaning of the words "right-of-way" in railroad deeds.

    Norm Maleng's "legal theory" was used to cover-up King County's East Lake Sammamish crime.

         To "justify" accepting the phony donation of the land under the ELS right-of-way, the King County Prosecutor declared that, in Brown v. State of Washington (1996), the Washington State Supreme Court had effected a "sea change" in the way railroad right-of-way deeds are construed. Maleng needed this lie to protect himself and his staff from tax fraud prosecution. I call Maleng's dishonest legal argument "Norm Maleng's 'legal theory'". Since Brown v. State of Washington (1996) was a later Washington State Supreme Court opinion, Maleng claimed that the precedent found in Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990) no longer applied. This lie justified the County accepting the donation of the land under the ELS right-of-way which had been deeded in 1887 using the same granting language that had been found to grant easements in Lawson and Squire.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Norm Maleng's "legal theory" claimed that in Brown v. State of Washington (1996), the Washington State Supreme Court threw out one hundred years of legal precedent which held the grant of a "right-of-way" to a railroad is an easement, and now the Washington State Supreme Court finds that the grant of a "right-of-way" to a railroad is a fee simple conveyance of the underlying land unless the deed contains a separate statement "expressly and clearly limiting the estate conveyed". This dishonest legal theory has two basic elements (two basic false claims).

      Element 1: Equate the grant of a "right-of-way" to a railroad with the grant of a "strip of land".

      Element 2: Require a separate statement "expressly and clearly limiting the estate conveyed" in order to find the conveyance of an easement. 

         Norm Maleng's "legal theory" was first presented in 1997, the year before King County accepted a "donation" of all the land under the East Lake Sammamish BNSF right-of-way. Of course, this was a phony tax donation so BNSF could take a federal tax write-off of land the Railroad didn't own. Use the link below to understand the King County Prosecutor's dishonest legal argument, his dishonest briefs, and the adoption by Federal and State judges. Understand his "legal theory".
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Read a study of Norm Maleng's "legal theory". Follow its use in briefings and its adoption by the Hilchkanum judges.

    It is important to understand the profound dishonesty of the judges in Ray v King County and King County v Rasmussen.

         The "Hilchkanum Opinions", which settled the Ray and Rasmussen lawsuits, covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. These judges intentionally misconstrued the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the Seattle, Lake shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E). The Hilchkanum deed was based on a form deed prepared by the Railway lawyers and has identical granting language to many other SLS&E deeds, including the Tahalthkut, Davis, Sbedzuse and Yonderpump deeds along East Lake Sammamish. In general the construing of a railroad deed requires an examination of the facts, and an application of the law. The critical fact in construing a railroad deed is the intentions of the parties to the deed. Then, the correct application of the law enforces the intentions of the parties. In the "Hilchkanum Opinions" the judges manipulated both the facts and the law. With respect to manipulating the law, they all adopted Norm Maleng's "legal theory", described above. The following sub-paragraphs describe manipulation of facts and the illegal use of summary judgment by the Hilchkanum judges.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Understand that some of the Hilchkanum opinions are blatant Criminal Acts from the Bench

      The "Hilchkanum Opinions" associated with the Ray and Rasmussen lawsuits were decided by illegally using summary judgment. Under our law, a jury was required in each case, but the Hilchkanum judges refused that right. As explained above, there are two basic elements in construing a right-of-way deed, the facts and the law. In common law, disputed material facts are resolved by a jury, and the correct application of the law is the responsibility of the judge. When there is no disagreement with the material facts, a jury is not required and the judge may resolve the lawsuit by applying the undisputed facts to the law. This is called summary judgment. Crooked judges, like those who illegally resolved the Ray and Rasmussen lawsuits, dishonestly declare that there are no questions of fact, and then cherry pick the facts or even make up facts which support their predetermined outcome to the lawsuit. The following are disputed material facts which were illegally resolved by judges in Ray v. King County (2004). In real courts of law, with real judges, a jury would resolve these material facts.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Authorship of a deed is a material fact. In common law, the words of a deed are construed against the party who wrote the words. In Ray v. King County (2004), Judges Cox and Schindler decided that the deed was written by the notary public. The truth is that the notary public merely filed the deed at the request of the SLS&E lawyers. This ridiculous conclusion of fact by Cox and Schindler "justified" their opinion that the words of the Hilchkanum deed should be construed against the Hilchkanums. The Hilchkanums were illiterate Native Americans who signed the deed with an "X". No legitimate jury would agree with Cox and Schindler's conclusion of authorship. The lawyers for the SLS&E Railway wrote the deed, and these crooked judges knew it. Cox and Schindler needed to manipulate the material fact of authorship because the granting clause of the Squire deed was also written by the Railway lawyers. Since the granting clause of the Squire deed "...strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...", Cox and Schindler needed to find ways to ignore the binding precedent established in King County v. Squire (1990). By denying that the SLS&E lawyers authored both the Squire and ELS deeds, Cox and Schindler were able to remove that common factor which would require the Squire precedent be applied to the ELS deeds. It was obscene that the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court allowed summary judgment and Cox and Schindler's dishonest conclusion of authorship to stand, when the Rays appealed.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View a study on the authorship of the SLS&E deeds. View documents that would have caused a jury to conclude the SLS&E deeds were written by the SLS&E lawyers.

      The intentions of the parties is a material fact. To construe the meaning of a deed, common law requires the intentions of the parties to be enforced. In order to determine the intentions of the Hilchkanums in their right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, Judges Cox and Schindler examined the Hilchkanum's subsequent real estate deeds which conveyed land containing the SLS&E right-of-way. Some of the subsequent Hilchkanum real estate deeds excepted the right-of-way, but other subsequent real estate deeds did not contain the exception of the right-of-way. Crooked Judges Cox and Schindler cherry picked the subsequent deeds, considering only the ones which excepted the right-of-way. Judges Cox and Schindler dishonestly decided that since the right-of-way was excepted in these subsequent Hilchkanum real estate deeds, that the land under the right-of-way was excepted. In common law, this is one possibility, but not the only possibility. Cox and Schindler then concluded that, since the land under the right-of-way was excepted in subsequent Hilchkanum deeds, the Hilchkanums had conveyed the land to the SLS&E with their right-of-way deed. This is not what a legitimate jury would decide if the material fact of the Hilchkanum's intentions had been properly resolved. A jury would understand that the exception of a right-of-way in a subsequent real estate deed excepts whatever is represented by the term "right-of-way". If the deed to the SLS&E conveyed an easement, the exception of the right-of-way in subsequent real estate deeds would merely notify the grantee of the easement. If the deed to the SLS&E conveyed fee simple title, the exception of the right-of-way in subsequent real estate deeds would except the land under the right-of-way. So the exception of the right-of-way in the Hilchkanum subsequent real estate deeds, does not explain what was granted to the SLS&E in the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           I wrote that judges Cox and Schindler cherry picked the subsequent Hilchkanum real estate deeds. They refused to consider the implication of the subsequent deeds which did not contain an exception for the right-of-way. These crooked judges knew these deeds destroyed their conclusion that the Hilchkanums had conveyed their land to the SLS&E. If a subsequent real estate deed did not have an exception for the right-of-way, then the land under the right-of-way was conveyed with that subsequent real estate deed. Since these subsequent deeds sold the land under the right-of-way, this would indicate the Hilchkanums believed they still owned that right-of-way land and were legally selling it in that subsequent real estate deed. If the Hilchkanums believed that they still owned the land under their right-of-way when they executed their subsequent real estate deeds, this shows that they believed that they did not grant that land to the SLS&E with their 1887 right-of-way deed. This proves that the Hilchkanums intended to grant only an easement with their right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. This strong evidence that the Hilchkanums granted only an easement to the SLS&E was ignored by the Hilchkanum judges who illegally resolved the Ray and Rasmussen lawsuits.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           Judges Cox and Schindler cherry picked the Hilchkanum subsequent real estate deeds and misapplied the law in order to determine the material fact of the Hilchkanum's intentions in their right-of-way deed. In real courts of law with real judges, this disputed material fact would have been resolved by a jury. No legitimate jury would agree with the dishonest conclusions of fact by Cox and Schindler. No jury was allowed by any of the Hilchkanum judges involved with the Ray or Rasmussen lawsuits. This includes the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read more about the meaning of the exception of a right-of-way in a deed.

      What is conveyed in the granting clause of the SLS&E deeds is a material fact. In Ray v King County and King County v Rasmussen, the judges changed the word "right-of-way" in the granting clause of the Hilchkanum deed and then construed the deed using the altered language. There is no law which allows a judge to change the words in a deed. If it was the intention of the parties to the Hilchkanum deed to write "right of way" in the granting clause, but mean "strip of land", then that disputed material fact must be resolved by a jury. The intention of the parties is the critical material fact to be determined in the construing of a deed. How could our Washington State Supreme Court judges allow Appeals judges Cox and Schindler to change the words of the Hilchkanum deed in Ray v. King County (2004)?
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      The ability of the Hilchkanums to participate in their deeds is a material fact. Judges Cox and Schindler determined that the Hilchkanums were able to fully participate in their deeds. They came to this conclusion by claiming that the Rays provide no evidence to the contrary. This analysis of the Ray's evidence is the duty of a jury, not the privilege of these dishonest judges. As illiterate Native Americans in 1887, the Hilchkanums were at a great disadvantage in dealing with the powerful white men who placed a right-of-way deed in front of them to sign. The court was provided document after document that showed the Hilchkanums were limited in their ability to deal with legal matters, Judges Cox and Schindler illegally resolved these contributing facts in order to come to their conclusion that the Hilchkanums were able to fully participate in their deeds.
          My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of MY OPINION.

        Open the portion of Ray v. King County (2004) where Judges Cox and Schindler illegally determination of the Hilchkanum's ability to participate in their deed.

    Did the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court intentionally cover-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme?

         The Washington State Supreme court refused to accept the appeal of Ray v. King County (2004), and by that action, participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. With their refusal, our Supreme Court allowed Norm Maleng to change Washington State property law in order to hide King County's crime. When it is understood that these judges committed this crime, they must be impeached. How do you determine if they intentionally committed this crime? That will be understood by their ability to explain their support and justification of Ray v. King County (2004), which is a criminal act from the bench.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The Washington Supreme Court refused to consider Ray v. King County three times. After losing their lawsuit in King County Superior Court, the Rays appealed the lawsuit directly to the Washington State Supreme Court. That request was denied, so the appeal went to Court of Appeals, Division One. After Ray v. King County (2004), the criminal act by Division One Appeals Judges Cox and Schindler, Ray was again appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court. The appeal was denied a second time. Finally, the Rays and more than one hundred other ELS residents took their taking claims to the United States Court of Federal Claims. In 2005, on a motion from the plaintiffs, Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Horn requested certification from the Washington State Supreme Court on questions of legal precedent related to the construing of the granting language in Ray v. King County (2004). This was a direct challenge to the lies briefed by the King County Prosecutor and their adoption by Division One and the Washington State Supreme Court. The Washington State Supreme Court denied the request with these words published in Beres v. United States (2010).
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

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

      "Order at 1-2 (Wash. Oct. 7, 2005) (quoting Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) 16.16(a) (2006)) (omissions in original). Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the Washington Supreme Court’s order denying review. The Washington Supreme Court indicated, however, that because the Washington Supreme Court had not granted review, its order was not subject to reconsideration, and the Washington Supreme Court closed the file without further action.”
           [Beres v. United States (2010), go to pages 9 and 10]

         I've learned to pay suspicious attention when a lawyer or judge uses the word "clearly" . This 2005 reply by the judges of our Supreme Court is the third time they have refused to deal with King County's dishonesty in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, and the cover-up of the crime. Ray is a criminal act from the bench, and our Supreme Court judges participated in the crime by refusing to accept and correct Ray. If the judges of our Supreme Court are confident that the issues in Ray v. King County (2004) have been "clearly determined" , then it should be simple to explain this to the members of the Washington State Legislature, who have the responsibility to impeach judges who commit crimes from the bench.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    If our Supreme Court judges cannot explain their support of the criminal act committed in Ray v. King County (2004), they must be held accountable for participating in the tax fraud scheme. They must be impeached!

         It's time for the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court to finally explain the unexplainable. Norm Maleng and his staff manufactured dishonest legal argument in order to protect themselves from federal tax fraud prosecution. It is unforgivable, but it's understandable, for crooked lawyers, like Norm Maleng, to submit dishonest briefs. However, it is a betrayal of the people of Washington State for the judges of our Supreme Court to adopt this dishonest legal argument, and steal millions of dollars from innocent families in Washington State. Did the judges of the Supreme Court intentionally participate in the tax fraud scheme, or were they too stupid to understand and apply one hundred years of consistently held, and well understood, legal precedent? It's time for the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court to explain the unexplainable.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Who are the present judges of the Washington State Supreme Court who committed this crime?

         The present judges of the Washington State Supreme Court, who refused to review and correct Ray v. King County, participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and must be held accountable. They are: Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen, Associate Chief Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, and Justice Susan Owens. The same holds true for the Division One judges who committed a criminal act with Ray v. King County (2004). They are: Judge Ronald Cox and Judge Ann Schindler.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View my March 31, 2009 public letter to the Judges of the Washington State Supreme Court.

    How do you know if you have lost property rights?

         If the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme gets exposed and corrected, who will get compensated? That appears to be a two step process. First, it must be determined if the SLS&E right-of-way deed associated with your property is an easement. The Tahalthkut, Davis, Sbedzuse, Yonderpump and Hilchkanum SLS&E right-of-way deeds are linked above. I'm not sure how much of the ELS right-of-way is represented by these deeds, but one can plot those 1887 right-of-way deeds and compare to the location of their ELS property to determine if they would qualify based on Judge Horn's opinion. In 1997, attorney Daryl A. Deutsch reviewed all the 1887 East Lake Sammamish right of way deeds and concluded "...the vast majority of the instruments clearly conveyed to the railroad no more that an easement..." Deutsch was the lawyer who beat King County in Lawson v. State (1986) and King County v. Squire (1990). Deutsch was the lawyer who was right when King County was wrong.

      Read Daryl A. Deutsch's 1997 memorandum.

         The second step is to determine if there is a complete chain of title from the 1887 grantor of the right-of-way to the present title of your property. With Lawson v. State, my understanding is that King County admitted the SLS&E deeds were right-of-way easements, then paid researchers to find a deed in the chain of title which failed to properly convey the right-of-way land. Once the County found that deed, they located the party, or successor in interest, who granted that flawed deed, and purchased the land under that portion of the right-of-way for a small amount. This is ugly stuff from your King County government!
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I paid a respected title expert over $10,000 to get the chain of title for my ELS property. So, my suggestion for those now seeking compensation is first to see if the tax fraud scheme can be exposed and a claim can be made against King County or the federal government before spending that much money for title research.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    What advantage is there in regaining ownership of your right-of-way land?

         Regaining ownership of the right-of-way land associated with your property might put you in a position for compensation based on the criminal act committed by King County against you. Regaining ownership of your right-of-way land will make it much more difficult for King County to charge you to use your right-of-way land. It will make it much more difficult for King County to charge you to cross your own right-of-way land. In our common law, the owner of land under a right-of-way may use that land as long as it doesn't interfere with its use as an easement. When a trail easement is taken on the ELS right-of-way, only enough land may be taken to satisfy the requirement for the trail. King County does not need the full width of the ELS right-of-way to construct the ELS trail. So, the portion not used for a trail should be available to the landowners. However, since the right-of-way is railbanked, King County is required to keep the right-of-way available for reestablishment of a railroad. This would make it unlikely a permanent structure, such as a home or garage, could be constructed on the right-of-way by the landowner. But, it seems reasonable for the landowner to use the land for a garden or a parking area or for any other use which would not interfere with its reestablishment as a railroad. Also, it seems reasonable that barriers could be constructed to protect the privacy of the landowners. Under the Railbanking law, King County has a right to establish a trail across your property, but it seems unreasonable for you to lose your privacy so the users of the ELS trail can have a view of Lake Sammamish.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The best reason to regain ownership of your land is to stand up against the corruption and dishonesty in King County government and the courts. East Lake Sammamish residents have been bullied for more than fifteen years.

         If you teach your children and family members to stand up against a bully, then why would you give in to the bullying you have received for so long from King County? Why would you give in to the dishonesty and corruption in our courts which has resulted in the theft of your land? Teach by example. Stand up for your property rights, and stand against this corruption which directly harms your family.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    What are the options for those whose land has been stolen by King County, and for those who have not received compensation because of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme?

           There is little chance that it can be resolved in the federal or State courts of Washington.

           Since so many Ninth Circuit and Washington State judges have participated in the ELS tax fraud scheme, there is little chance that it can be resolved in the courts of Washington. It appears the first priority of judges in our State is to protect each other. This situation could change if the public is made aware of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, and if the Washington State legislature agrees to impeach the State judges who have committed this crime. This includes the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           I doubt a claim can be made against the U. S. in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

           As stated above, I believe that the deadline is long past for filing a claim for the taking involved in the Railbanking of the ELS right-of-way. I don't know if a federal claim can be filed because of the criminal act by King County and judges of the Federal Ninth Circuit. In any case I believe that would not be possible unless the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme is exposed and made public.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           The King County Prosecutor will not help.

           Because the present King County Prosecutor was Norm Maleng's chief of staff, he took part in the crime and will continue to work against the landowners he defrauded along East Lake Sammamish. He should be in federal prison for his part in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           The U.S. Attorney is an unlikely ally.

           On April 18, 2002, my lawyer and I took evidence of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme to Mr. Jeff Sullivan, Chief, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Washington. Sullivan listened to our description of the crime, and accepted a written briefing with supporting data. I left that meeting with the understanding that Sullivan would get back to me. He never did. Then, prior to his unexpected death in May 2007, Norm Maleng was supporting Jeff Sullivan to become the U.S. Attorney in Seattle. I gave evidence of Maleng's participation in federal tax fraud to Sullivan. Sullivan refused to prosecute Maleng. Then, five years later, Maleng supported Sullivan to advance to U.S. Attorney. It's apparent to me that Jeff Sullivan "sold" my rights and the rights of other ELS residents in order to advance himself to US Attorney. The office of the U.S. Attorney in Seattle has invested in the ELS tax fraud scheme.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View a more detailed discussion which suggests that Federal Prosecutor Jeff Sullivan used the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme to promote himself.

           I believe the King County Council will stonewall and ignore any request for help.

           It is very unlikely that the King County Council will admit it participated in the County's criminal act against ELS residents. Four present Council members were on the King County Council in 2000 when I wrote the email linked below. These present Council members are Larry Phillips, Pete vonReichbauer, Larry Gossett, and Jane Hague. In February 2000, these four were advised of the crime committed by King County against ELS residents and have never responded. Since they share responsible for King County's ELS crime, it seems certain that they will ignore any request for help. Instead, the members of the King County Council will continue to work against their ELS residents in order to hide their involvement in the tax fraud scheme.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Letter to Ron Sims and the King County Council 2000-02-07 re: tax fraud scheme.

           It likely will be difficult to find a respected lawyer to help.

           Since the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court participated in the tax fraud scheme by refusing to correct Ray v. King County (2004), it will be necessary for a lawyer to attack the corruption and dishonesty in our Supreme Court. Lawyers can easily lose their license by criticizing a judge.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           The Seattle Times needs to be shamed into reporting the ELS tax fraud scheme.

           I tried for a number of years to get The Seattle Times to expose the tax fraud scheme. Nobody from The Times ever showed interest in investigating and exposing the ELS tax fraud scheme. I gave up trying with The Seattle Times in 2009 with the email linked directly below. Since I wrote that 2009 email to The Seattle Times, Judge Marian Horn of the United States Court of Federal Claims has issued two opinions finding ELS Right-of-way deeds to convey easements. With these Horn opinions, perhaps The Times will do its duty and now expose the ridiculous conclusions found in the Hilchkanum opinions which dishonestly resolved the Ray and Rasmussen lawsuits. Freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I believe that the Seattle Times should see that "freedom" as a responsibility to report the judicial and political corruption involved in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View my August 30, 2009 public letter to the owners, editors, and staff of The Seattle Times.

           Impeachment of the judges will be difficult, but must be pursued!

           The ELS tax fraud scheme is a "house of cards" supported at its "foundation" by the judges of our Washington State Supreme Court. Remove that "card" and the "house" collapses, exposing the fraud. Norm Maleng claimed that one hundred years of legal precedent was suddenly changed by our Supreme Court in Brown v. State of Washington (1996). This is a ridiculous lie which our Supreme Court judges must justify in detail, or be impeached. We cannot allow criminal acts from the bench like the criminal acts committed by the judges of our Supreme Court with their cover-up of the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           It takes three-fourths of the combined state legislature to impeach a judge. It will probably take a lot of publicity to get our legislature involved in holding our judges responsible for their part in the ELS tax fraud. I doubt that there has ever been an impeachment of the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court. I've prepared a draft letter to be sent to every member of the Washington State Legislature in January 2015. If I sense a significant commitment by the defrauded residents of East Lake Sammamish, I'll send that letter to every member of the Washington State legislature. If there are only a couple of ELS folks willing to stand up for their rights, my time and effort would be wasted to send that letter. There needs to be publicity generated about the tax fraud scheme and theft of the ELS land in order for the letter to have any effect with the Washington State legislature.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           Please avoid Civil Disobedience.

           For more than fifteen years, King County has acted criminally against the right-of-way land owners along East Lake Sammamish. I don't know who got to the judges, but federal and State judges have covered-up the tax fraud scheme, protecting those in King County who committed the crime. For more that fifteen years the defrauded landowners have acted lawfully, while judges, politicians, and others have acted outside the law. I believe acts of civil disobedience will not be useful for those seeking compensation and the return of their stolen land. There may be a time for that, but not until the public has been made aware of the corruption in our government and the crime committed against the ELS residents. The defrauded land owners along East Lake Sammamish are victims of the crimes committed by King County and the judges. Civil disobedience will cause the public to see those defrauded as aggressors rather than victims.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    What actions can ELS residents take to regain their stolen land, and receive compensation?

         As I wrote above, it will take a group effort and a lot of publicity to regain ownership of the land under the right-of-way and to be compensated. I hope that will happen. I write this letter in December 2014 and believe it would be a good New Year's resolution to start making noise after the holidays in January 2015.

      It will take a group effort to regain your right-of-way land and your property rights.

           I've fought, alone mostly, against this theft of land for fifteen years. In the federal and State courts of Washington, I can assure you that the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper on a wall, and has little meaning. Sadly, the legal rights of an individual have no importance in a situation like I've described here. If there is to be any compensation and return of stolen land, it will take a group effort.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Write to the members of the Washington State Legislature.

           Nothing much will happen until the dishonest Hilchkanum opinions is exposed. The final "nail" in this "coffin" of injustice was driven by the judges of our Washington State Supreme court. They participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme by refusing to correct Ray v. King County (2004), and refusing to explain when Judge Marian Horn of the United States Court of Federal Claims requested clarification. The judges who participated in that crime must be impeached. Once the criminal act committed by the judges is understood by the public, there should be opportunities to regain the stolen land and to be compensated. As I wrote above, I've prepared a draft letter to be sent to every member of the Washington State Legislature in January 2015. If I sense a significant commitment by the defrauded residents of East Lake Sammamish, I'll send that letter to every member of the Washington State legislature.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Write to The Seattle Times.

           The Seattle Times has refused my requests to report the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. Perhaps a flood of complaints will finally get the Times to do its duty to report this corruption. Let the Times know that a portion of those defrauded have found some honesty and compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, but the majority have been left out in part because of the dishonesty of King County and the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court. Explain that this might not have happened if The Seattle Times had reported the truth to its readers.

      Write to the Issaquah Press.

           The Issaquah Press would be a good option, too. I believe the former editor for the Press was pro-trail. I believe she is retired now, which might be helpful. In any case, almost any honest reporting is good.

      Write to the King County Executive and King County Council.

           I doubt that will do much good. This is true because the most senior members of the King County Council where there in 2000 at the beginning of the ELS crime. They ignored notice of the crime then, and will ignore it now. These folks are "invested" in East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. Be sure to point out that King County claims fee simple ownership of all the land under the ELS right-of-way, but Judge Marian Horn of the United States Court of Federal Claims determined that a significant portion of the right-of-way was easements. Ask them to explain why.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Spread the word. Talk with your neighbors.

           I am placing a very short note at the homes along East Lake Sammamish whose owners appear likely to have been defrauded by the ELS tax fraud scheme. The note will have a link to this online letter. I'll likely miss some homeowners who should be notified. Please pass the link along to your neighbors.

           If there is interest in pursuing compensation and a return of the stolen ELS land, it will need to be a group effort. I live in Lyle, WA which is a four hour drive from Sammamish. I'm not in a position to organize the protest that would be necessary. If enough interest is expressed, then there should be a public meeting organized after the first of the year. If only a few folks are willing to work to regain their stolen land, it won't be successful. I will certainly do all I can to help hold those responsible for the crimes committed against the residents of East Lake Sammamish, and my family.

      Make a New Year's Resolution.

      It's my hope that folks along East Lake Sammamish will look at the injustice from King County and the Hilchkanum judges who decided the Ray and Rasmussen lawsuits, get educated about who has harmed them, and resolve to do something about the crimes committed against their families starting in January 2015.

      Send me your ideas.

      I understand the crime that was committed against my family and other families along East Lake Sammamish. Before the ELS tax fraud scheme, I believed that everyone gets fair treatment in our courts. I know better now. I'm interested in ideas that will help us get compensation and regain ownership of the land King County has stolen. My email address is below.

              Regards,     John Rasmussen

              Email: john@trailofshame.com