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

How Norm Maleng Covered-up King County's Participation in the East Lake Sammamish Federal Tax Fraud Scheme

by John Rasmussen

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



Topics:  (Each topic is presented as a hyperlink. Use this menu to jump to that subject.)

    Introduction:

      Five steps Norm Maleng took to cover-up his participation in the ELS fraud

      1. Manufacture a "legal theory" to explain why all the previously construed SLS&E deeds conveyed easements, and then, all the SLS&E deeds along Lake Sammamish should be found to grant fee simple title.

      2. Hide or destroy any earlier published opinion by King County which held that BNSF did not own the land under the ELS right-of-way.

      3. Convince federal prosecutors not to investigate and prosecute the participants in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

      4. Convince the Federal and State judges to irrationally agree with the King County Prosecutor's dishonest legal argument.

      5. Attack anyone who blows the whistle on this crime (such as me), using the time honored political tactic "Lie, Stonewall and Slander".

    Summary:



Introduction:

        Norm Maleng, the long time prosecutor of King County, Washington, had a "little" problem. He had participated in a federal tax fraud scheme and needed to cover up his crime. As a condition of "purchasing" the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) right-of-way from Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Maleng agreed to accept a phony donation of land that he knew BNSF didn't own. BNSF had hired the now-disgraced accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, LLP, to provide an inflated value for the ELS right-of-way, and had instructed Arthur Andersen to appraise the right-of-way as if BNSF owned all of the right-of-way land. Norm Maleng knew that BNSF owned very little of the land under the ELS right-of-way. The sale of the right-of-way to King County, through an intermediary, was termed a "Bargain Sale" and involved King County (Norm Maleng) accepting a phony donation of land BNSF did not own, valued at around $40 million. A phony donation of $40 million, when taken as an illegal tax write-off, would be worth about $15 million to BNSF. This $15 million "payday" was provided courtesy of the unaware American taxpayer and, of course, Norm Maleng and the other participants in the tax fraud scheme.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        The fact that Norm Maleng knew that BNSF did not own the land which it was donating in its "Bargain Sale" made Maleng a participant in the crime. So, Maleng needed to hide the fact that he knew the land was not owned by BNSF and the donation was phony. But more important, Maleng needed to claim that the land was now owned by King County. He needed to manufacture a legal claim to the land that he accepted as a fraudulent tax donation. Norm Maleng needed to pull out all the slimy lawyer tricks that he could muster. Apparently, this was very easy for Norm. He had a staff of lawyers who were ready and willing to join in the crime with him. In order to pull off this deception, there were a couple of issues that Maleng needed to deal with. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      * King County had published at least one opinion that BNSF owned only two percent of the land under the right-of-way. This opinion was inconsistent with the BNSF-Arthur Andersen appraisal based on 100% ownership of the land by the railroad. Accepting donation of this land from BNSF would implicate Maleng in the tax fraud scheme. Maleng needed to deal with this. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      * The ELS right-of-way was founded by the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E) in the late 1800s. Two SLS&E deeds had been construed in Washington courts. Both deeds were found to be easements. Further, in Lawson v. State, King County had admitted that all the SLS&E deeds involved in that lawsuit were easements. My understanding is that there were about twelve deeds there. So, fourteen SLS&E deeds had been found to grant easements. No SLS&E deed had been found to grant fee simple title. Now, Norm Maleng accepts a phony donation based on the fact that all the SLS&E right-of-way deeds along East Lake Sammamish granted fee simple title. Since the SLS&E deeds were built on a common "form deed" which was written by the Railway's lawyers, Maleng needed to manufacture a justification for this inconsistency. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        For someone as powerful and dishonest as Norm Maleng, covering up his participation in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme required just a few of simple steps. I discuss each of these dishonest tactics by King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, next.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

Five steps Norm Maleng took to cover-up his participation in the ELS fraud

    1. King County Prosecutor Maleng needed to manufacture a "legal theory" to explain why all the previously construed SLS&E deeds conveyed easements, but all the SLS&E deeds along Lake Sammamish conveyed fee simple title.

      Before the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme in the late 1990s, about fourteen SLS&E right-of-way deeds had been brought before Washington courts. All of the deeds were determined to be easements.

          Two SLS&E deeds were construed to convey easements by the courts in King County v. Squire and Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber. In Lawson v. State, about twelve other SLS&E deeds were admitted to be easements by the King County Prosecutor. This was a big problem for Norm Maleng because the SLS&E deeds along East Lake Sammamish used identical granting language.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      King County v. Squire (1990)

          I believe that the most troublesome opinion for Norm Maleng was King County v. Squire (1990). In Squire, the Washington State Appeals Court construed Watson Squire's 1887 right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. In its opinion, the court identified which words were written by the Railway lawyers, and which words were added or changed by Watson Squire. The Squire court gave great consideration to the changes made by Watson Squire in order to understand his intentions. The court concluded that the Squire right-of-way deed was an easement based on the wording in the granting clause. By default, the Squire court attributed authorship of the granting clause words to the Railway.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "The Squire deed granted a 'right-of-way Fifty (50) feet in width through said lands'. This suggests an easement was conveyed...the language in the granting clause strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...The authorities and cases discussed above clearly support construing the Squire deed as an easement."
        [King County v. Squire (1990)]

          It was very correct for the Squire court to determine that the Squire deed conveyed an easement. The Squire deed granted a "right of way" to the Railway in its granting clause. It is well established precedent in Washington State that the grant of a "right-of-way" to a railroad, expressed in the granting clause or habendum, conveys an easement.

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

          Additionally, the Squire court found that the language inserted by Watson Squire in the habendum simply reiterated the intent of the Watson Squire and his wife to convey an easement. (citation with my emphasis)

        "The instant case is much more compelling since Squire specifically included language in the habendum clause reiterating the limitation of the conveyance to use as a right of way. We hold that an easement was conveyed."
        [King County v. Squire (1990)]

          As I wrote above, the Squire court identified which deed words were written by the Railway lawyers, and which words were added or changed by Watson Squire. When compared to other SLS&E right-of-way deeds of the same period, it's obvious that the words written by the Railway lawyers are taken from the SLS&E "form deed". This "form deed" was also used to obtain the 1887 right-of-way deed from Bill Hilchkanum. Based on the common law precedent set in King County v. Squire, an honest comparison of the Squire and Hilchkanum deeds shows the Hilchkanum deed to be an easement. Norm Maleng could not allow an honest comparison. He needed the Hilchkanum deed to be found a fee simple grant in order to hide his participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. Dishonest federal and State judges gave Maleng his wish, in violation of the Constitution, the law, and the facts.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View a study which establishes the SLS&E "form deed" and identifies the Railway as author.

        View a study comparing the Hilchkanum and Squire right-of-way deeds to the SLS&E.

      Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber (1910)

          The Burke deed was construed as an easement in Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber (1910). In construing the issue of easement or fee, the court concluded: (with my emphasis)

        "...when the instrument is construed as a whole and in the light of the purpose for which the grant was made, it is a grant of a right of way or easement and nothing more.

               'The grant of a right of way to a railroad company is the grant of an easement merely and the fee of the soil remains in the grantor. Although the language used in the granting part of the deed and in the habendum is appropriate, and that commonly used to convey the fee, yet the clause descriptive of the use to be made of the land may so limit or qualify the grant as to change it from a fee to an easement." Cyc. 1162; Robinson v. Missisquoi R. Co., 59 Vt. 426, 10 Atl. 522.'"
        [Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber (1910)]

          The Burke deed was not published in Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber, but was published in Northlake Marine Works v. Seattle (1993). Thomas Burke was one of the founders of the SLS&E and was its lead attorney. His right-of-way deed was construed in 1910, while he was still alive, influential in the community, and available as a declarant to the court. Burke was considered an expert in property law and was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Washington Territory in 1888 and 1889. We do not have the records of that lawsuit, but it seems unlikely that Burke's deed would have been found an easement if Thomas Burk did not intend that his deed convey that interest in the property. While his right-of-way deed is based loosely on the same "form deed" which was used for the Squire and Hilchkanum deeds, it is different in that it is a quitclaim deed and it includes a reverter statement in the habendum.

      Lawson v. State (1986)

          Approximately twelve SLS&E right-of-way deeds were involved in Lawson v. State (1986). (This number is provided on page 5 of the Lawson lawyer's reply brief to the Washington State Supreme Court, filed January 23, 1986. This document is available at the Washington State Archives, 1129 Washington Street SE, Olympia, WA 985041129 Washington Street SE, Olympia, WA 98504.) In Lawson, the Washington State Supreme court did not construe the issue of easement or fee simple, but it did make this statement: (with my emphasis)

        "We note that, insofar as the present record reveals, the County has only acquired, through a quitclaim deed, whatever interest Burlington Northern held. There is a strong argument to be made that Burlington Northern had no interest to convey to the County: upon abandonment of the right of way the land automatically reverted to the reversionary interest holders."
        [Lawson v. State (1986)]

          In the King County Prosecutor's brief to the Supreme Court, the following admission was made: (with my emphasis)

        "Solely for the purposes of its CR 12(b)(6) motion, King County accepted as true plaintiffs' allegations in their complaint that the original conveyance to the railroad had only been an easement, and that any reverter interest would go to them."
        ["Brief of Respondent King County" in Lawson, filed December 3, 1985 - Available at the Washington State Archives]

          The Lawson court noted that the King County Prosecutor admitted that the Lawson deeds were easements with this statement by the court: (with my emphasis)

        "Defendants argue that under Washington law a railroad is a perpetual public easement. They contend that a railroad right of way easement does not terminate upon a change from one transportation use to another transportation or recreation use, or any other consistent public use. We disagree."
        [Lawson v. State (1986)]

          This admission by King County that the deeds considered in Lawson were easements became important in the Hilchkanum decisions because the granting clause of the Bargquist deed (predecessor in interest to Lawson) is identical to granting clauses of the Squire and Hilchkanum deeds to the SLS&E. While every word in a deed is considered when construing its intent, the granting clause and habendum usually describe what is granted. In the Bargquist, Squire, and Hilchkanum deeds, the granting clause determines this issue. Here are the granting clauses from these three SLS&E deeds:
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Granting Clause: Bargquist right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, May 10, 1887

          "In consideration of the benefits and advantages to accrue to me from the location, construction, and
          operation of the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, in the county of King, in Washington Territory,
          I do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern railway Company a
          right-of-way one hundred (100) feet in width through my lands in said county, described as follows, to wit:"
          [May 10, 1887 Bargquist right-of-way deed to the SLS&E]

        Granting Clause: Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, March 29, 1887

          "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:"
          [March 29, 1887 Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E]

        Granting Clause: Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, May 9, 1887

          "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 Company a
          right of way one hundred (100) feet in width through our lands in said County described as follows to wit."
          [May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E]

          One can see that these granting clauses use identical wording. As I stated earlier, this language is identical to many other SLS&E deeds and is obviously taken from the "form deed" authored by the Railway lawyers. I've obtained the material portions of twenty-three SLS&E right-of-way deeds and analyzed their common language. Fifteen of those twenty-three deeds have this identical language in their granting clauses. Here are links to those deeds, in most cases providing a photo copy for the reader to verify.

        View the Lee granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Lurber granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the McGraw granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Squire granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Stone granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Lewellyn granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Burnett granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Pearson granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Davis granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Anderson granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Sbedzuse granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Hilchkanum granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Ashworth granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Bargquist granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

        View the Peterson granting clause to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "form deed" granting clause.

          The emphasis above is on the common language in the SLS&E granting clauses. The Hilchkanum judges identified three elements of the Hilchkanum right of way deed to be considered in the determination of the easement-fee issue. These elements are the granting clause, the secondary grant, and the habendum. In my opinion,the granting clause is the critical element to determine this issue. All three elements in the Hilchkanum deed are taken from the Railway's "form deed". This issue is discussed at the following link.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View a study which establishes the SLS&E "form deed" and identifies the Railway as author.

          In 1986, Norm Maleng admitted the Barguist deed granted an easement in the resolution of Lawson. Then, in 1990, the Squire court determined that the Squire deed granted an easement. Norm Maleng, representing King County, lost that lawsuit. How could Maleng then claim that the Hilchkanum deed to the SLS&E, using the identical granting language found in the Bargquist and Squire deeds, conveyed fee simple interest of the land under the right-of-way starting in 1997 onward? The answer is that Norm Maleng had to manufacture a phony legal brief to justify his acceptance of the land under the ELS right-of-way as a donation from BNSF. I call that phony legal brief "Norm Maleng's legal theory" and discuss it next.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Norm Maleng's "legal theory" to justify his acceptance of the phony BNSF donation of its land under the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way:

          Norm Maleng and his civil staff needed to come up with a "legal theory" to explain why all the SLS&E deeds along the BNSF East Lake Sammamish right-of-way conveyed fee simple title to the SLS&E Railway in 1887. This theory would keep Maleng and his staff out of federal prison for their participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. As I explained above, Maleng's admission that the Bargquist deed in Lawson v. State granted an easement, and the finding of the court in King County v. Squire that Squire granted an easement, exposed Maleng's dishonesty in accepting the phony tax donation from BNSF.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Since the previous decisions finding the SLS&E "form deed" granted easements were based on Washington State common law, and common law is based on precedent, Maleng and his staff looked to the legal decisions published after King County v. Squire in order to find an opinion which they could mischaracterize in order to cover-up their crime. The decision they selected was the Washington State Supreme Court opinion Brown v. State of Washington (1996). Brown was a later opinion, issued by the highest court, and construed railroad right-of-way deeds. Brown was perfect. Maleng simply needed to manufacture a "legal theory" as to how Brown had changed one hundred years of legal precedent holding the grant of a right-of-way to a railroad is an easement. This was easy for someone as dishonest as Norm Maleng. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Maleng's "legal theory" proposed that Brown v. State of Washington had "clarified" one hundred years of consistently held legal precedent, and that now everything was changed. Instead of the long held precedent that the grant of a "right-of-way" to a railroad always conveys an easement, now Maleng's "legal theory" holds that this is true only if additional language in the deed "expressly and clearly" limits the conveyance to an easement. According to Maleng's "legal theory", without this additional language, a deed granting a right-of-way to a railroad will be presumed to grant the land in fee simple interest. Of course, Brown v. State of Washington does not support Maleng's "legal theory". In fact, Brown contradicts Norm Maleng's "legal theory". Maleng and his staff mischaracterized Brown by using short, selected citations and misrepresenting their meaning when read in the context of Brown and the context of long held legal precedent. Maleng intentionally ignores the portions of the Brown which refuted his dishonest argument. The study of Norm Maleng's "legal theory", hyperlinked below, explains this dishonest tactic, in detail. Norm Maleng realized that he might get lucky and be able to influence the judges construing the ELS right-of-way deeds to buy his "legal theory". But, if Maleng wasn't able to influence the judges, he could always fall back on his "I'm just stupid defense", described below.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Norm Maleng's "legal theory" was first made public on September 17, 1997 in a memorandum written by Senior King County Deputy Prosecutor Bill Blakney. Subsequently, the "legal theory" was used in all of the Prosecutor's briefs related to the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. It is very troubling that federal and State judges adopted Norm Maleng's "legal theory" when they construed the Hilchkanum deed. Since Norm Maleng's "legal theory" is so blatantly dishonest, the judge's adoption of the "legal theory" implicates them in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and identifies them as active participants in the crime.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View a study of Norm Maleng's "legal theory".

        Read an analysis of Senior King County Deputy Prosecutor Bill Blakney's memorandum.

      The "I'm just stupid" defense.

          Norm Maleng accepted a donation of land from BNSF that he knew BNSF didn't own. To keep himself from going to federal prison for his participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, he simply needed to claim BNSF owned that land. He wouldn't go to prison for accepting a donation of land that was legally owned by the grantor (BNSF). To claim ownership of all the land under the ELS right-of-way, Maleng and his civil staff needed to devise a "legal theory" to explain why BNSF owned all of the right-of-way land. This was discussed above. As long as his "legal theory" seemed to be an honest attempt to obey the law, he could not be prosecuted for tax fraud in accepting the phony donation. If the courts ruled that his "legal theory" was wrong, his excuse for not getting the law right would be "I'm just stupid". You don't go to prison for being stupid.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    2. The King County Prosecutor hid his earlier published opinion that BNSF did not own the land under the ELS right-of-way.

          It is difficult to discover incriminating documents that have been destroyed. How does one find something that no longer exists? I don't know how many documents the Prosecutor destroyed, but I know of one incriminating document that Norm Maleng's office did not destroy. By chance, this incriminating document was discovered by two of my neighbors. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          In January 1997, the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Redmond, Washington, wrote a memorandum titled "East Lake Sammamish Trail Progress Report" to the City leadership. Attached to that report was a draft report from King County detailing ELS trail issues. In that draft report, King County stated that it was its opinion that BNSF owned only 1,500 feet of the ELS right-of-way. 1,500 feet would equal only two percent (2%) of the 12 mile length of the ELS right-of-way. One of my neighbors obtained the report from the city of Redmond. This version contained the incriminating paragraph stating it was King County's opinion that BNSF owned only 1,500 feet (2%) of the right-of-way. The other neighbor got the same report from King County under the Freedom of Information Act. The document received from King County had the incriminating paragraph removed. When the neighbors compared the documents, they discovered the version that was under the control of the King County Prosecutor (Norm Maleng) had been illegally altered. Evidence of this alteration was submitted as Exhibit 2 to supplement my declaration in King County v. Rasmussen (2001). (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View Exhibit 2, King County v. Rasmussen (2001): the altered and unaltered City of Redmond document.

          My understanding is that County documents available under the Freedom of Information Act are held in the custody of the King County Prosecutor. As I stated above, it is very difficult to discover documents that have been destroyed. I believe it if very incriminating to find this evidence. When a person realizes that the missing paragraph simply disappeared off a page that was completely legible in every other respect, it seems very unlikely that this was some problem with a copy machine. It's very likely that this was an intentional act by someone in Norm Maleng's office. Maleng needed to have this information hidden from the public in order to cover-up his participation in the tax fraud scheme. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Of course, the removal of that paragraph proves nothing! The discovery of this altered document does not prove that Norm Maleng ordered the destruction of information. I have no proof of who actually did this dishonest act. I don't even have proof that the paragraph was removed after it was acquired by the prosecutor's office. It's possible it was removed before it was sent to King County. Perhaps this single act does not prove Norm Maleng participated in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme, but read on to understand how I believe this fits into a pattern.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    3. Convince federal prosecutors not to investigate and prosecute the participants in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

      U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan:

          There is evidence which suggests a federal prosecutor acted unethically, using the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme to promote himself rather than to protect the American people from corruption.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          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. Sullivan told me he would get back to me. He never did. It would appear that Jeff Sullivan simply buried my complaint. This would have been a big favor for Norm Maleng, Federal Judge Barbara Rothstein, and the other participants in the tax fraud scheme.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           There was at least one connection between Norm Maleng and Jeff Sullivan. When I presented the ELS tax fraud scheme to Sullivan in April 2002, the U.S. Attorney in Seattle was John McKay. If Sullivan had any thought of prosecuting Norm Maleng, he would have needed the approval of John McKay, his boss. But, John McKay has a brother, Mike McKay, who had been U.S. Attorney in Seattle during the George H.W. Bush administration. Mike McKay was a close personal friend to Norm Maleng. This was explained in a May 25, 2007 Seattle Times article:
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "Mike McKay, one of Mr. Maleng's closest friends and a former U.S. attorney in Seattle, was with Mr. Maleng's wife Thursday night when his death was confirmed."
            [The Seattle Times May 25, 2007, "Longtime prosecutor Norm Maleng dies"]

           So, if Jeff Sullivan contacted his boss, John McKay, about prosecuting Norm Maleng for the ELS federal tax fraud scheme, it seems obvious that John McKay would have known that his bother was a close personal friend to Norm Maleng and would have discussed this with his brother, Mike McKay. That news would have likely got to Maleng very quickly. Norm Maleng's contacts and influence was very broad and powerful in the State of Washington, and beyond.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          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 in order to advance himself and buy a partnership with the corrupt King County elite.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           There are public questions about Jeff Sullivan's character. When Sullivan earlier served as the Prosecutor of Yakima County, Superior Court Judge Susan Hahn accused Jeff Sullivan of unethical conduct in her State of Washington v. Alexander Martinez opinion. It is very uncommon for a judge to take such a step. In 2010, I went to the Washington State archives to research Judge Hahn's charges of unethical conduct against Jeff Sullivan. I was unable to obtain Judge Susan Hahn's opinion, but when the Martinez opinion was appealed, the Washington State Court of Appeals again condemned Sullivan's unethical behavior. Below, are citations from the Appeals Court's written opinion, with a link at the bottom to the full opinion. Why would Jeff Sullivan be appointed a United States Prosecutor, and later US Attorney, without this documented unethical behavior being publicly discussed? It seems to me that Jeff Sullivan migrated to U.S. Attorney because of the ability of federal and State judges to ignore his previous unethical conduct and act without any accountability to the people they pretend to serve. Sullivan refused to open the "can of worms" containing the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and the participation of the Federal District Court in the cover-up of that crime. Based on the judicial opinion cited below, Jeff Sullivan is a criminal who has been promoted to a position of power in our judicial system. If this is the situation, why? Again, the following are citations from the Appeals Court's written opinion, with a link at the bottom to the full opinion. (with my emphasis)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "To support dismissal under CrR 8.3(b), the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence both (1) arbitrary action or governmental misconduct, and (2) actual prejudice affecting the defendant's right to a fair trial. [...] Claimed governmental misconduct need not be evil or dishonest in nature; “ ‘simple mismanagement is sufficient.’ ” [...] However, dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) is an extraordinary remedy that is improper except in truly egregious cases of mismanagement or misconduct that materially prejudice the rights of the accused."

        "Mr. Sullivan's insistence that he did not know the significance of the Ramirez burglary report until the middle of **1216 trial is ludicrous. Further, the potential exculpatory nature of the report was obvious..."

        "Recognizing this fact, the trial court concluded that

          Sullivan's omission misled the trial judge into making a ruling that never questioned the materiality or relevancy of the gun identification.... In fact, the chrome gun could not have been the same gun used by the Calderas. Had the court known this, the evidence would have been inadmissible pursuant to Evidence Rule 402, which provides that evidence ... which is not relevant is not admissible."

        "The State's failure to reveal exculpatory evidence to the accused *34 is a violation of due process. [...] Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the untimely revelation of exculpatory evidence here constituted governmental misconduct. Even if this misconduct is the result of mismanagement rather than deceit, it is egregious enough to satisfy the first requirement for a CrR 8.3(b) dismissal."

        "Government conduct may be so outrageous that it exceeds the bounds of fundamental fairness, violates due process, and bars a subsequent prosecution. [...] The level of governmental misconduct needed to prove a violation of due process must shock the conscience of the court and the universal sense of fairness."

        "The State prosecutor's withholding of exculpatory evidence until the middle of a criminal jury trial is likewise so repugnant to principles of fundamental fairness that it constitutes a violation of due process."

        "In the drive to achieve successful prosecutions, the end cannot justify the means. Id. And if the State knows that *36 the most severe consequence that can follow from withholding exculpatory evidence until late in the trial is that it may have to try the case twice, it will hardly be seriously deterred from such conduct in the future."

        [View State of Washington v. Martinez (2004)]

          After Norm Maleng unexpectedly died, the judges of the Federal Court, Western District of Washington, appointed Jeff Sullivan to be U.S. Attorney in Seattle.

        The Seattle Times 9-26-2007, "Judges appoint Sullivan as Seattle-based U.S. Attorney"

          It is unusual for judges to appoint U.S. attorneys. They are usually appointed by the President of the United States. U.S. attorney is a political appointment, so why is the judiciary selecting the U.S. attorney in Seattle? If Jeff Sullivan had prosecuted King County's participation in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme, the evidence would have exposed the Federal District Court's participation in the crime. Federal District Judge Rothstein covered-up the federal tax fraud scheme with her decision, King County v. Rasmussen (2001), and was an active participant in the crime. Did the judges take the unusual step of appointing the Seattle U.S. Attorney because Sullivan had worked a deal with them to protect Maleng, Rothstein, and the Court? Did Sullivan trade my rights as an American Citizen to get himself advanced into the U.S. Attorney's office? Norm Maleng had significant influence with certain judges in the federal district court. Judge Robert Lasnik was chief judge of the federal district court in Seattle at the time the court appointed Jeff Sullivan. As chief judge, Lasnik certainly had great influence on the court's decision to appoint Sullivan. Judge Lasnik, was a close personal friend of Maleng, worked earlier as Maleng's chief of staff, and went to Maleng's home to comfort his wife when he learned of Maleng's death.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "Robert Lasnik, the chief U.S. district judge in Western Washington who worked closely with Mr. Maleng for years as chief of staff, praised Mr. Maleng as 'the heart and soul of justice in this community for more than 30 years.'

        'No one questioned his integrity or his honesty,' said Lasnik, who was driving to the Maleng home late Thursday night to be with Mr. Maleng's wife, Judy.

        Lasnik and William Downing, a King County Superior Court judge, are among a host of young prosecutors Mr. Maleng brought into office and helped rise to prominence in the legal community."
            [The Seattle Times May 25, 2007, "Longtime prosecutor Norm Maleng dies"]

          Isn't it suspicious? I give evidence of Maleng's and Rothstein's participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme to Jeff Sullivan. Nothing happens. Later, Maleng supports Sullivan to become U.S. Attorney. When Maleng dies, Maleng's pals in federal district court appoint Sullivan to U.S. Attorney. And then there is that unethical conduct thing with Sullivan in Yakima County. This is all very suspicious!
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Of course, I don't know what Sullivan did with the evidence of tax fraud I gave him that day. Perhaps he spent many hours, even days, investigating the crime and simply found it not worthy of prosecution. Then, perhaps he just forgot to get back to me. The fact that Maleng and the federal district judges supported Sullivan's advancement does not prove that Sullivan used the tax fraud scheme to advance himself. I have no proof. When crooked lawyers and judges have private conversations, it's difficult to listen in. Perhaps this single act does not prove Norm Maleng participated in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme, but read on to understand how this fits into a pattern.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    4. Convince the Federal and State judges to irrationally agree with the King County Prosecutor's dishonest legal argument.

          As I unraveled the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and looked at the participants, I found that there are multiple connections to Norm Maleng. For example, Peter Goldman, the trail activist, worked for Norm Maleng for a period of time. Goldman is a board member of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. I believe that the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy actively participates in federal tax fraud schemes in order to entice the railroads to railbank their unused rights-of-way. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          With respect to the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, the most troubling relationships were between Norm Maleng and the federal and State judges. I don't have the resources to find out how many King County judges worked for Norm Maleng before becoming judges. I'd bet money that it's quite a few. Since, the first judge to hide the tax fraud scheme was Federal district Judge Barbara Rothstein, I'll discuss the federal district court's connection to Maleng. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          I've learned of two judges who had close friendships with Maleng and are on the Federal District Court in Western Washington. The following statement is taken from The Seattle Times article on May 26, 2007, titled "Maleng leaves a living legacy".

        "U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez, who worked to create the drug court with Maleng, his former boss, said it never would have happened without the prosecutor's unwavering support."
        (The Seattle Times)

          The other Federal District Judge, Robert Lasnik, appears to be one of Maleng's closest friends. I discussed Lasnik's connection to Maleng in a section above, and will repeat much of that information here. Judge Robert Lasnik is Chief Judge of the Federal District Court in Western Washington (May 2011). Lasnik worked for fifteen years as Maleng's chief of staff, and went to Maleng's home to comfort his wife when he learned of Maleng's untimely death. The following statement is taken from The Seattle Times article on May 25, 2007, titled ""Longtime prosecutor Norm Maleng dies"".

        "Robert Lasnik, the chief U.S. district judge in Western Washington who worked closely with Mr. Maleng for years as chief of staff, praised Mr. Maleng as 'the heart and soul of justice in this community for more than 30 years.'

        'No one questioned his integrity or his honesty,' said Lasnik, who was driving to the Maleng home late Thursday night to be with Mr. Maleng's wife, Judy.

        Lasnik and William Downing, a King County Superior Court judge, are among a host of young prosecutors Mr. Maleng brought into office and helped rise to prominence in the legal community."
        (The Seattle Times)

          The East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme was concocted in the mid 1990's. Since Lasnik became a King County Superior Court judge in 1990, we know that he was not serving as Norm Maleng's chief of staff at the time of the tax fraud scheme. However, from the above Seattle Times article it appears that they remained close friends. After I presented U.S. prosecutor Jeff Sullivan with evidence of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, Sullivan never got back to me. But, it appears that he worked a deal with Norm Maleng because he refused to prosecute Maleng for federal tax fraud, and then Norm Maleng supported Sullivan's promotion to U.S. Attorney when that position was opened with the firing of John McKay. After Maleng unexpectedly died in early 2007, Judge Lasnik and the judges of the Federal District Court appointed Sullivan to U.S. Attorney. Here, it appears that a federal judge promoted a U.S. prosecutor to U.S. Attorney after that prosecutor refused to prosecute his close friend and a member of the judge's court for their participation in a federal tax fraud scheme.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    5. Attack anyone who blows the whistle on this crime (such as me), using the time honored political tactic "Lie, Stonewall and Slander".

          Norm Maleng attacked me when I "blew the whistle" on his participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. I wrote a letter to Norm Maleng on January 31, 2000, explaining the evidence I had discovered of his participation in the tax fraud scheme. Of course, Maleng didn't reply because he could not explain his criminal activity. I wrote several more letters over the next months in an attempt to have the leadership of King County investigate the criminal activity of its prosecutor. King County uses a technique to deal with complaining constituents that I call "Lie, Stonewall and Slander". First, they lie about whatever they are doing wrong. Then, they stonewall every attempt by a concerned citizen to get answers. If the citizen pushes the issue to the place that the County needs to finally respond, the County slanders and threatens the citizen in order to protect itself.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          After months of enduring trespassing County employees, on August 9, 2000, I wrote a letter to David Irons, my King County Council representative, and again laid out the federal tax fraud scheme, the stonewalling, the illegal activities of the County, and the violation of my rights. I informed Irons that, unless the County would begin a dialog with me, that I would give 72 hours notice and then begin to defend my property with a gun. The King county leadership responded with a letter from Ron Sims, the King County Executive, claiming that I was threatening to shoot innocent County employees. Apparently, for Ron Sims, it is common for mass murders to notify everyone 72 hours in advance. There was no threat to shoot innocent employees. My only threat was to defend my property and life from the criminal activity of my government. From my perspective, Sims' letter was a threat to attack me with false prosecution which, if successful, would take away my livelihood. I was a commercial pilot. If I were falsely convicted of a felony, I would lose my pilots license and my livelihood.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          The King County Prosecutor then manufactured perjurious declarations claiming I threatened County employees. With those declarations, the Prosecutor filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against me. The hearing for that preliminary injunction is documented with the following hyperlink:
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        King County v. Rasmussen Preliminary Injunction September 14, 2000.

          At that hearing, King County moved to enjoin me from having any contact with King County employees who trespassed on my property. The Prosecutor claimed that I had threatened King County employees, but provided no statement or declaration from an employee claiming that I had threatened them. This was because I had never threatened a County employee in spite of their indifferent trespass on my property for fifteen months. In order to falsely establish a "threat", the County produced a perjurious declaration by ELS Trail Project Manager Jennifer Knauer. In her declaration, Knauer claimed, that her employee claimed, that my wife claimed in a conversation with me, that I had threatened to harm County Employees. I'm still trying to figure out if that is double hearsay or triple hearsay. Both my wife and I directly refuted this hearsay testimony in our declarations. Further, we provided documentation of other dishonest and perjurious statements by Knauer. There was another dishonest declaration from King County employee, Shelley Marelli. King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley imposed an injunction against me without any legitimate evidence and ignored my description of the criminal activity of King County. The bias of Judge Haley is evident in the annotated version of his preliminary injunction hearing.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          I was never able to depose and challenge the slanderous statements made against me by members of the County. Because of the bias by Judge Haley in his preliminary injunction and his willingness to ignore the criminal activity of the County, we moved the lawsuit "out of the frying pan and into the fire" by changing to federal district court.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

Summary:

    Norm Maleng committed very dishonestly acts against my family. But, Norm Maleng was considered a pillar of the community. How could a "pillar of the community" commit criminal acts? The short answer is found in the age old quotation: "Power corrupts" (Lord Acton). (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    We usually have a commitment to the Constitution, the laws, and the truth (facts) in our courts, but this didn't happen in the Hilchkanum lawsuits (King County v. Rasmussen and Ray v. King County). It appears to me that the one person who had the power to participate in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, and had the power to threaten those who exposed his criminal acts, and who had the power to influence federal and State judges to cover-up his crimes, was Norm Maleng. After almost thirty years as the King County Prosecutor, Norm Maleng apparently had succumbed to one of the most human fragilities, the belief that his power gave him the right to do whatever he felt was "right", in violation of the laws we have established to govern ourselves. This happens with individuals who have been given great power and are too weak to resist its temptations. Norm Maleng was dishonest and morally weak, very weak, as I show with the information on this page.
    (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)