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

Evidence of the Federal Tax Fraud Scheme used to Railbank the East Lake Sammamish Railroad Right-of-Way:

by John Rasmussen

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



Introduction:

    Hard and Soft Evidence:

         There is evidence of the federal tax fraud scheme used to railbank the East Lake Sammamish BNSF railroad right-of-way in King County, Washington. That evidence falls into two categories. First, there is hard evidence which consists of documents that prove, or strongly suggest, the federal tax fraud scheme. The second category is more subjective. I call it soft evidence. The soft evidence consists of the actions the participants took when they participated in the tax fraud scheme, or the actions they took to cover-up the crime. For example, when I challenged King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng to explain his participation in the crime, he responded by refusing to communicate with me, by manufacturing lies about me, and by threatening me with false felony prosecution. Norm Maleng's actions were those a very powerful guilty party would take when confronted with his crime. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Crimes from the Bench:

         Throughout this website, I present evidence of the participation of judges in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. Some of the judges, such as Federal District Judge Barbara Rothstein, were briefed on the specifics of the tax fraud and presented hard evidence of the crime. Rothstein struck the description and evidence of the tax fraud scheme, and then failed to turn that evidence over to federal prosecutors. In her opinion, King County v. Rasmussen (2001), Rothstein violated my rights, stole my land, manufactured facts, and misapplied the law. Rothstein's published opinion is a criminal act which covered-up the federal tax fraud scheme. Her published opinion and is soft evidence of her participation in the crime.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Other judges were not provided specifics of the tax fraud scheme in court, but appear to have been illegally influenced outside the court. The proof of their participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme is in the dishonesty of their opinions and the effect of their opinions to cover-up the tax fraud scheme. The most cowardly "opinion" was not an opinion at all. It was the denial of appeal of Ray v. King County (2004), an appeal that the Washington State Supreme Court was required to accept and correct, but refused. Further, the Washington State Supreme Court denied a request for ceritfication of the leagal issues involvedin their criminal act from U.S. Federal Court of Claims Judge Horn in 2005. The WSSC dishonestly declined to respond.
        (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 accusing the Washington State Supreme Court Judges of a criminal act.

         The property rights issue which was involved in East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme was presented in the courts at least eight times. Each time, judges committed criminal acts from the bench through their opinions or refusal of appeal. I provide a detailed analysis of three dishonest opinions on this website, and show that the lies and misapplication of the law tie these judges to the tax fraud scheme. All the opinions were rendered through the illegal use of summary judgment. All the opinions adopt a phony legal argument concocted by King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng to cover-up King County's participation in the crime. A study of these dishonest opinions provides soft evidence of the judges participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. This soft evidence documents the complete breakdown of our judicial system and strongly suggests that we no longer have a system of laws and a Constitution, but rather we are ruled by judicial whim, judicial privilege, and unchecked judicial power.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



Outline of the Hard and Soft Evidence and Judicial Participation
     (Each piece of evidence is presented as a hyperlink. Use this menu to jump to that item.)

    Hard Evidence:

      1. Arthur Andersenís fraudulent appraisal of the ELS right-of-way

        A. The false claim that BNSF owned all of the land under the right-of-way, fee simple.

        B. The inflated value of the right-of-way provided by Arthur Andersen.

          (1). The inflated $41.76 million Arthur Andersen ELS appraisal for BNSF.

          (2). The $13.97 Million ELS appraisal for King County.

        C. The King County Assessor's value of the land was much lower.

        D. The actual value of the BNSF right-of-way: Less that 2 million.

        E. If BNSF owned all the ELS r-o-w land, why didn't it warrant its ownership in the sale documents?

      2. The King County Prosecutor knew the donation was fraudulent.

        A. The County knew that SLS&E form deed granted an easement.

        B. The King County Prosecutor altered public documents to hide evidence of his crime.

          (1). View my Exhibit 2 to Federal District Court, the altered and unaltered report.

        C. The King County Prosecutor was advised, in King County's own title report, that the land was an easement.

          (1). View my Exhibit 3 to Federal District Court, the Title Officer's Review of Title Report.

      3. The Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County hid evidence of its participation in the federal tax fraud scheme.

        A. View the BNSF/TLC draft sale agreement with distorted text and $41.7 appraised value crossed out.

        B. View the final sale agreement between BNSF and TLC, with missing page six inserted.

      4. Hard Evidence Suggests TLC and BNSF have Participated in other Fraudulent Land Transactions.

    Soft Evidence:

      1. "Lie, Stonewall, and Slander": How King County deals with its citizens.

      2. Slander: The Prosecutor of King County manufactured lies to threaten and discredit me.

      3. My own representative on the King County council failed to keep his promise to investigate the crime.

      4. Former King County Executive Gary Locke may have been involved in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

    The Courts: Dishonest Opinions, Constitutional Violations, Judicial Collaboration

      1. The Federal Judiciary:

        A. King County v. Rasmussen (2001) - Federal District Judge Rothstein

        B. King County v. Rasmussen (2002) - Federal Circuit Judge B. Fletcher

        C. Denial of Ninth Circuit en banc appeal

        D. Complaint of Judicial Misconduct - Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Schroeder

        E. Denial by the U.S. Supreme Court

      2. The State Judiciary:

        A. Ray v. King County (2004) - Appeals Judges Cox and Schindler

        B. Ray v. King County (2004) Dissenting - Appeals Judge Baker

        C. Denial by the Washington State Supreme Court (Ray v. King County)

        D. Dishonesty in King County Superior Court. (King County v. Rasmussen) - Judge Donald Haley

      3. Starting in 2010, a number of ELS Deeds were Determined to be Easements in the Federal Court of Claims.

      4. Based on Beres, where do the East Lake Sammamish Owners of the Land under the ELS right-of-way Stand?



Hard Evidence: Documents indicating Tax Fraud was Committed:

         I found several documents that indicate a federal tax fraud scheme was used to establish the East Lake Sammamish trail. On February 7, 2000, I described these incriminating documents to every member of the leadership of King County with the hope that they would call for a criminal investigation of Norm Maleng, the King County Prosecutor. Not one of these elected officials asked to see the documents or called for an investigation.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         These documents were also presented to Federal District Judge Rothstein in my lawsuit with the county, King County v. Rasmussen. Rothstein struck the documents on a motion by the King County Prosecutor. Further, Rothstein failed in her duty to turn the evidence over to federal prosecutors for investigation of federal tax fraud. How convenient for crooked King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng to have the judge to strike evidence of his crime. Rothstein then illegally allowed summary judgment, denying my right to establish the facts of the tax fraud scheme, and issued a decision which hid the crime. Her dishonest use of summary judgment denied my right of due process, the possibility to reintroduce the documents, and my right to question the participants in the crime, under penalty of perjury.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I described the crime and evidence to Senator John McCain on July 4, 2000. As chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, McCain had oversight on the railroads and should have been concerned about a federal tax fraud using railbanking. Senator McCain did not respond. I wrote the Senator a second time on January 25, 2001. Again, no response to the issues I raised.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I took the evidence to a federal prosecutor. I met with Mr. Jeff Sullivan, Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Washington on April 18, 2002. I described the criminal activity of King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and the King County leadership. I provided evidence of the federal tax fraud scheme used to railbank the East Lake Sammamish BNSF right-of-way. Sullivan told me he would get back to me. He never did. Jeff Sullivan did a big favor for Norm Maleng, the leadership of King County, and the judges of the federal district court by refusing to prosecute. Also, it appears that Jeff Sullivan has a problem with his ethics. He was publicly criticized for unethical conduct as Yakima County Prosecutor by Yakima Superior Court Judge Susan Hahn in State of Washington v. Alexander Martinez. When the State appealed that decision, the Washington State Court of Appeals agreed with Judge Hahn and reiterated her condemnation of Jeff Sullivan in State of Washington v. Martinez (2004).
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In my situation, it appears Sullivan traded the interests of my family and the interests of the American people in order to promote himself. Prior to his death in May 2007, Norm Maleng was supporting Jeff Sullivan to become the U.S. Attorney in Seattle. It's obvious to me that Norm Maleng supported Jeff Sullivan because Sullivan refused to prosecute Maleng for Maleng's participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. After Maleng's death, the judges of the Federal District Court in Western Washington appointed Sullivan to U.S. Attorney. Chief Judge Lasnik of the Federal District Court was a close friend of Maleng's, served as Maleng's chief of staff for fifteen years, and appointed Sullivan after Sullivan refused to prosecute the participants in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme. One of the participants was Lasnik's fellow Federal Judge, Barbara Rothstein. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

         The following is the hard evidence which I described to King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, King County Executive Ron Sims, the King County Council, Federal Prosecutor Jeff Sullivan, Senator John McCain, the IRS, Federal Judge Rothstein, and others. The reader of this webpage becomes the next important person presented with this evidence. The reader becomes a member of a "jury" which was never allowed by the judges who illegally resolved the Rasmussen's and Ray's lawsuits. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    1. Arthur Andersenís Fraudulent Appraisal of the ELS right-of-way: $41,760,000.

         Burlington Northern Santa Fe donated the land under the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) right-of-way to King County and then took a massive illegal tax write-off. The disgraced accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP, provided the appraisal of the right-of-way for BNSF. There were two elements to the fraud involved in the Arthur Andersen ELS right-of-way appraisal: the false claim of ownership, and the greatly inflated valuation of the right-of-way.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      A. The false claim that BNSF owned all of the land under the right-of-way, fee simple.

             Both the Arthur Andersen ELS right-of-way appraisal and the King County ELS right-of-way appraisal, hyperlinked below, assumed that all the land under the right-of-way was owned fee simple by the railway. This was a fraudulent assumption because the right-of-way deeds to the Railway were based on a "form deed" which had been composed by the Railway lawyers and had previously been found to not grant fee simple title to the Railway. The Burke and Squire deeds to the Railway had been construed in Washington State courts and found to be easements. See Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber & Shingle Mill Company (1910) and King County v. Squire Investment Co., et al (1990). Further, in Lawson v. State of Washington (1986), the King County Prosecutor admitted that all the SLS&E deeds involved in that lawsuit were easements. There were about twelve SLS&E deeds involved in Lawson. This means that out of fourteen deeds to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway previously contested in court, all had been determined to grant easements. None had been found to grant fee simple title. Yet in the ELS appraisals, shown in the hyperlinks below, all the SLS&E deeds were assumed to have granted fee simple title. Since the ELS deeds were constructed on the SLS&E ELS "form deed", which is materially identical to the previous deeds which had been determined easements, it was pure, blatant, intentional fraud for BNSF to instruct Arthur Andersen to appraise the right-of-way based on the assumption that BNSF owned the underlying land, fee simple. Further, it was an intentional criminal act for Norm Maleng, the King County Prosecutor, to subsequently accept a donation of this underlying land when he knew it was not owned by BNSF.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          View an expanded and documented discussion of the importance of the opinions shown above.

      B. The inflated value of the right-of-way, provided by Arthur Andersen, was used to take an illegal federal tax write-off.

             Arthur Andersen, LLP provided a grossly inflated appraisal of the east Lake Sammamish right of way so that Burlington Northern Santa Fe could take an inflated illegal tax write-off. The Arthur Andersen appraisal was for $41.76 million. Compare this to the appraisal commissioned by King County at $13.97 Million. It would be nice if everyone could inflate the value of their tax donations by three times, or more, and then take that inflated value as a write-off on their IRS taxes. Thatís what BNSF did, and Federal Judge Barbara Rothstein struck evidence of the crime and hid the facts when they were presented to her in federal court. Here, we're not considering the fact that BNSF didn't own what it donated, we're just considering the inflated value of the donation.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          View the $41.76 Million Arthur Andersen ELS Appraisal for BNSF. (Significant pages.)

          View the $41.76 Million Arthur Andersen ELS Appraisal for BNSF, Full Appraisal. (Note: large 4mb file)

          View the $13.97 Million ELS Appraisal for King County. (Significant pages.)

      C. The King County Assessor's value of the land was much lower:

             The 1996 Arthur Andersen appraisal valued the land under the BNSF right-of-way on my property at approximately $455,000. This was completely dishonest because the King County Assessor valued all of the land on my property at $399,400 in 1996. The right-of-way comprised only about one third of my lot and contained no waterfront. Much of the value of the land was tied to the water frontage. The hyperlink, directly below, provides documents and calculations which show the complete dishonesty of the Arthur Andersen appraisal of my right-of-way land. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          Do the math! View documents and calculations that show the grossly inflated BNSF appraisal of the Rasmussen right-of-way land by Arthur Andersen.

      D. What was the Actual Value of the East Lake Sammamish BNSF Right-of-Way?

             It's obscene that BNSF and Arthur Andersen valued the right-of-way land on my property at many times the County Assessor's valuation of my land, at many times the actual purchase and sale prices of my property, and at many times King County's own appraisal of the BNSF right-of-way.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             The actual value of the ELS right-of-way was what BNSF would have netted if it had abandoned the right-of-way. Abandonment was looming for the railroad because it was losing money with its operation on the ELS spur line and the track was in great need of expensive repairs. Upon abandonment, it was estimated that BNSF would have assets consisting of fee simple title to land valued at $1.5 million and the scrap value of the rails and ties. The value of these assets would be decreased by the cost of removing the rails and ties, and the cost of cleaning up the right of way. The various railroads that owned the ELS right-of-way over the last one hundred years had left their waste ties on the right-of-way when they were replaced. These waste ties were toxic and would have been expensive to remove and dispose. Iíd estimate that the net value of BNSFís interests, on abandonment, was less that $2 million. Contrast this with the $40.26 million illegal federal tax write-off, after the payment of $1.5 million by TLC in the "bargain sale". Ridiculous!
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          View the Final Sale Agreement between BNSF and TLC. (Presented to a very dishonest Federal District Judge Barbara Rothstein as Exhibit 6. Rothstein struck this exhibit!)

      E. If BNSF owned all the ELS right-of-way land, why didn't it warrant its ownership in the sale documents?

             BNSF instructed Arthur Andersen to value the ELS right-of-way as if BNSF owned all of the underlying land. Obviously, this appraisal was used by BNSF to take a fraudulent tax write-off for the donation to King County of this land it didn't own. Yet, in the documents of sale, BNSF used a Quitclaim deed. If BNSF took a tax write-off with the IRS for its donation of all the land under the right-of-way, then why didn't BNSF convey that land using the Statutory Warranty Deed Form? BNSF provided no guarantee that it owned the land, yet took $15 million from the U.S. Taxpayers for its $40 million phony tax deduction. Instead, King County took on the responsibility to prove it owned all the land under the ELS right-of-way. The King County Prosecutor knew he was committing a crime by accepting BNSF's "gift", and used County resources to hide this crime and defraud his ELS constituents. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             This contradiction, between BNSF's fee simple instruction to Arthur Andersen and its unwillingness to warrant that assumption in the papers of sale, may be seen in the documents linked below. In the Arthur Andersen appraisal, go to page 8 to find BNSF's instruction to appraise the land under the right-of-way fee simple. The Land Conservancy was used as a middleman in the transfer of the right-of-way to King County. Below, view the sale document from BNSF to The Land Conservancy (TLC) to confirm it is a Quitclaim deed. Go to page 2 (PDF page 5) to understand it is a "quit-claim". Then, view the sale document from TLC to King County in order to understand it is a Quitclaim deed, too. Go to page 2 (PDF page 3) to understand it is a "quit claim".

          View the $41.76 million Arthur Andersen ELS Appraisal for BNSF, Full Appraisal. (Note: large 4mb file)

          View the sale agreement between BNSF and The Land Conservancy (TLC).

          View the sale agreement between TLC and King County.

    2. Norm Maleng, the King County Prosecutor knew the BNSF Donation was Fraudulent, and Altered Documents to hide his Participation in the Crime.

      A. The King County Prosecutor knew that the "form deed" used by the SLS&E Railway had already been found to not grant fee simple title to the Railway.

             Norm Maleng, the King County Prosecutor, accepted a donation of all the land under the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way knowing that the land wasnít owned by BNSF. Maleng knew that his acceptance of the donation would allow BNSF a massive illegal tax write-off. All of the ELS right-of-way appraisals were based on the assumption that BNSF owned all of the land under the right-of-way.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             The original right-of-way deeds were obtained by the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E) starting in the late 1880ís. The deeds were based on a "form deed" written by the railwayís lawyers. About fourteen SLS&E deeds had been involved in lawsuits which required whether they conveyed easement or fee. Two of these SLS&E deeds had been found to be easements in judicial opinions. Those decisions are Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber (1910) and King County v. Squire (1990). The Squire opinion absolutely destroys King County's claim that the Hilchkanum deed grants fee simple title because the two deeds use identical granting words. These identical granting words were found to "strongly suggest[] conveyance of an easement" by the Squire court. To hide that conclusion of the Squire court, the King County Prosecutor lied in its briefs and misrepresented that conclusion of the Squire court.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

             About twelve SLS&E deeds were involved in Lawson v. State of Washington (1986). The Washington State Supreme Court did not determine the ownership in that case because it was not an issue. However the Washington State Supreme Court made this statement in its opinion:

          "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 of Washington (1986)]

             In his briefs to the Lawson court, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng admitted that all of the Lawson deeds passed only an easement to the SLS&E. I understand that later King County compensated the reversionary owners of the right-of-way land in order to settle that lawsuit. No SLS&E deed had ever been found to grant fee simple title to the Railway. Now, Norm Maleng accepts a $40.26 million donation of ELS right-of-way land from BNSF and needs to hide the fact that he knows BNSF is donating land that it doesnít own.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             To hide his crime, Norm Maleng instructed one of his senior staff to issue a "legal opinion" finding that the land under the right-of-way was owned by BNSF, fee simple, and that one hundred years of railroad right-of-way legal precedent had suddenly changed. That "legal opinion" was the Bill Blakney Memorandum to Faith Holste, King County Office of Open Space on September 17, 1997. I've done a study on this Norm Maleng dishonest tactic and I've named it Norm Maleng's "legal theory". Maleng's "legal theory" is found in briefs to the courts and the judicial opinions which protected Maleng and the leadership of King County from being held responsible for their crime. Norm Maleng's "legal theory" is soft evidence. But, there is hard evidence, too. The hard evidence is the Prosecutor's altered public documents which hide his crime. That's next.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      B. The King County Prosecutor altered public documents to hide evidence of his crime.

             "Someone" altered King Countyís copy of the minutes of a meeting held in Redmond, WA on January 13, 1997. At that meeting, a King County official had provided a written statement that it was King County's opinion only 1,500 feet of the ELS right-of-way land was owned by BNSF. 1,500 feet of the ELS right-of-way would be only about 2% of its length. This means that it was King County's opinion that 98% of the land under the ELS right-of-way was not owned by BNSF. Since BNSF sold the fee simple portion it owned for $1,500,000, this means that essentially 100% of the BNSF ELS land donation was fraudulent. As shown in the evaluation of the Arthur Andersen appraisal, above, BNSF had obtained a greatly inflated appraised value of the rightĖof-way land it donated to King County. But here we understand something even more important. Based on King County's evaluation, 98% of the right-of-way land was not owned by the railroad, so the King County Prosecutor knew that the BNSF donation was completely fraudulent.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

             Who altered the document? We have no proof of who did it, but we know that the King County Prosecutor needed to hide his crime and we know that the document provided evidence of his crime. Further, the document was under the King County Prosecutor's control. Last, the dishonesty of Norm Maleng's staff is discussed extensively on this website. It is obvious that this document was altered by the Prosecutor or his staff in order to hide the King County's participation 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.)

             It is significant that we were even able to find this altered document. Documents available under the Freedom of Information Act in King County are controlled by the King County prosecutor. When the prosecutor destroys or alters public documents to hide his criminal activity, it is almost impossible to discover this crime. How can the public find a document that no longer exists? How can the public determine that a document has been altered by the Prosecutor? We were lucky to obtain the altered document from the County and the unaltered version from the City of Redmond, then compare them. I submitted copies of the altered and unaltered versions of the document to Federal District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. Rothstein ignored and hid the obvious fraud, and failed in her duty to turn the evidence over to federal prosecutors. Apparently, Federal Judge Rothstein forgot that she swore an oath to uphold the law. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          View my Exhibit 2 to Federal District Court; Copies of the altered and unaltered report.

             It is important to understand that if the Prosecutor destroyed one document to hide his criminal activity, and that it is almost impossible to find his destroyed or altered documents, it is appropriate to ask: How many other documents did the Prosecutor of King County destroy in order to hide his participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme? Finding even one altered document is very significant.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      C. The King County Prosecutor was advised, in King County's own title report, that the land was an easement.

             King County commissioned a title report for the East Lake Sammamish (ELS) right-of-way. Regarding that title report, I made the following statement in my April 2001 declaration to Federal District Judge Rothstein.

          "...King County ordered a title report on the right of way from Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company in mid 1996. In December 1996 King County Office of Open Space produced a "Title Officer's Review of Title Report". I have looked through that report and identified the section that applies to my property. The report for my section of the right of way, and every other section that I read, contains this exception:"

            "Vesting: ***The particular deed under which this property was acquired was entitled "right of way deed" which would probably be deemed to be and easement interest only.***"
          [Open my April 2001 declaration to Federal District Judge Rothstein at this position.
          The portions of this declaration highlighted in yellow were struck by Rothstein.]

             Judge Rothstein struck this portion of my declaration without citing any rule. Further she struck my Exhibit 3, which was a copy of the King County title officer's review of the Commonwealth Title Report. Judge Rothstein also struck other briefing and evidence of the federal tax fraud scheme used to railbank the East Lake Sammamish BNSF right-of-way. She then failed in her duty to turn this evidence and briefing over to federal prosecutors. In my opinion, Federal district Judge Barbara Rothstein became an active participant in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme with those actions.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          View my Exhibit 3 to Federal District Court, the Title Officer's Review of Title Report.
          (Read item "9. Vesting:" on pages 2 and 6 of this pdf document.)

    3. The Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County (TLC) hid Evidence of its Participation in the Federal Tax Fraud Scheme.

           The Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County (TLC) acted as a middleman in the fraudulent tax transaction used to railbank the BNSF East Lake Sammamish right-of-way. Charles Montange was attorney for TLC in the transaction. I obtained a draft sale agreement which was faxed to Montange from BNSF. That proposed sale agreement had a section in which TLC would acknowledge the $41.76 million Arthur Andersen appraisal and certify the fraudulent donation to the IRS on Form 8283. This would be written proof of TLC's participation in federal tax fraud scheme because TLC had obtained an appraisal that valued the right-of-way at only $14.6 to $18.1 million.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           To understand the fraudulent intentions of BNSF and the willingness of TLC attorney Charles Montange to hide his knowledge of the fraud, one needs to compare the draft agreement and the final sale agreement between TLC and BNSF. The phony tax donation is described on page 6, both in the draft and final sale agreement. Our copy of the draft agreement had the bottom of page 6 distorted to the point it was made unreadable. It appears that Montange knew he was committing tax fraud and didnít want to make it obvious, so that portion of the draft document was altered to be unreadable. Perhaps there is another explanation. I sought that explanation in my lawsuit with King County, but my right to confront Montange was dishonestly denied by Federal District Judge Barbara Rothstein's illegal use of summary judgment. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           The copy of the final sale agreement that was supplied to the City of Issaquah had this same page 6 missing. I was finally able to read the commitment of Montange to certify the phony BNSF donation when I got a copy of page 6 from an employee of TLC. It is no coincidence that the information was distorted on the draft copy and missing on the final copy when these TLC documents were made available to the public. I called TLC to obtain the missing page 6. The TLC director and second-in-command were out of town. I talked to a lower employee, who faxed the missing page 6 to me. I donít know if this was a mistake by that employee, or that the officers of TLC knew that they couldnít hide their dishonesty, if challenged. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           I supplied the draft and final versions of the BNSF-to-TLC sale agreement, with an explanation of the suspicious alterations, as exhibits five and six to my declaration to Federal District Judge Barbara Rothstein. Rothstein struck the exhibits, and my explanation of the crime, on a motion by the King County Prosecutor. Rothstein then failed to turnover this evidence of a crime to federal prosecutors. It's a windfall when a crooked prosecutor can get the judge to strike evidence of his crime. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           The suspicious documents are provided at the hyperlinks, directly below. Page six of each document contains the information that TLC hid from the public. To find page six, use the page numbers at the bottom of the document pages. (Donít use the PDF page number shown by the Adobe Acrobat program, and donít use the fax page numbers in the upper right corner of the draft document.)

        View the BNSF-TLC draft sale agreement with distorted text and the $41.7 million appraised value crossed out.

        View the BNSF-TLC final sale agreement, with missing page six inserted.

    4. Hard Evidence Suggests TLC and BNSF have Participated in other Fraudulent Land Transactions.

           In May 2002, I received an email from a neighbor who had found evidence that suggested BNSF, the City of Redmond, WA, and The Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County (TLC) were participating in another federal tax fraud scheme. The neighbor had obtained an email, under the Freedom of Information Act, that described a land transaction from BNSF to the City of Redmond that was contingent on a predetermined appraisal value. Legitimate appraisals do not have a predetermined value. Appraisers that agree to a predetermined value are acting unethically and fraudulently. This appears to be "business as usual" for BNSF and its co-conspirators in King County. In the middle of this obvious shady transaction was Matthew Cohen, a public interest lawyer involved in the establishment of ELST, and Gene Duvernoy, the director of TLC. For me, it was sad to see Roger Staubach also involved in this federal tax fraud transaction. Staubach graduated two years before I at the U.S. Naval Academy, and was one of the greatest college and professional football quarterbacks of all time. At the Academy, he wore his Christianity on his sleeve. Itís not very Christian to cheat and steal.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View the May 8, 2002 email describing the BNSF-City of Redmond transaction based on a predetermined appraised value.



Soft Evidence: Actions, at all Levels of Government, that Supported the Federal Tax Fraud Scheme:

         Describing "soft" evidence is more difficult for me to communicate, but perhaps equally compelling when understood. The soft evidence is actions or inactions at every level of government which suggest the parties were aware of the tax fraud scheme and were intentionally ignoring the crime or were actively involved in the cover-up. In this section I describe actions by the leadership of King County which suggests its participation in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme. Further below, I describe actions by the judges of the State and federal courts which provides soft evidence of their participation in the crime.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)


    1. "Lie, Stonewall, and Slander": How King County deals with its Citizens:

      Lies:

           There is a method that the leadership of King County uses to dishonestly push its agenda. This method is very effective when the county is acting illegally, as it did with the East Lake Sammamish Trail (ELST). I call the method "Lie, Stonewall, and Slander". The leadership simply lies to their public when they have something to hide. For example, the spokesperson for the county declared that the county had thoroughly researched the ownership issue and that the County owned the land under the ELS right-of-way. As I explained above, the King County Prosecutor knew that this was an absolute lie because he had lost the ownership issue of a SLS&E right-of-way deed in King County v. Squire (1990). The Prosecutor knew that the ELS right-of-deeds to the SLS&E contained the same granting language as the Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E. Further, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng had admitted all the deeds involved in Lawson v. State (1986) were easements. The Lawson deeds were built on the same Railway prepared SLS&E "form deed" which was used by Squire and the deeds forming the ELS right-of-way. With that knowledge the King County Prosecutor and the King County Executive repeatedly lied to the public, falsely claiming ownership of the land under the ELS right-of-way. Here is one of those lies to the public.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        "We, King County, have fee title, not an easement," said Elaine Kraft, spokeswoman for County Executive Ron Sims. "We own (the land)."
        [Eastside Journal Newspaper, February 22, 2000]

      Stonewalling:

           When I challenged the leadership to explain its right to establish a trail without compensating me, the leadership and every department of the county stonewalled my attempts to communicate. Eventually, I discovered the federal tax fraud scheme that was being used to establish the trail and challenged the county to explain its criminal act. The stonewalling continued. I challenged King County Sheriff Dave Reichert in emails on August 11, 1999 and January 23, 2000 to stop the County's illegal trespass. Reichert refused to address the criminal activity that I described. Finally, when I had endured fifteen months of lies, stonewalling, the harassment of county employees arrogantly trespassing across my property, and the refusal of the sheriff to protect my family and me from the County's criminal actions, I declared my intent to defend my property and my rights with a gun. The county responded by manufacturing a false identity for me that characterized me as a criminal. From then on, the King County Executive and the Prosecutor slandered me in order to divert attention from their crimes, diminish my argument in court, and threaten me with false felony prosecution. The following are fifteen months of unanswered emails which demonstrate a pattern of stonewalling by King County. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Email letters which show fifteen months of stonewalling by King County:

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

        April 9, 1999 email to the county council demanding it recognize my property rights. No significant Response.

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

        April 26, 1999 email from the King County prosecutor. Dishonest Response.

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

        June 21, 1999 email to the King County prosecutor. I explained the law, and demand that he justify his continued trespass. No Response.

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

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

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

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

        August 11, 1999 email to the King County Sheriff and leadership explaining that I believe the Sheriff is ignoring a crime. The Sheriff failed to justify his illegal enforcement of the countyís trespass.

        August 13, 1999 email from the King County Sheriff explaining his duties. The Sheriff failed to justify his illegal enforcement of the countyís trespass.

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

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

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

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

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

        January 18, 2000 email to my weak King County Representative, David Irons, No Honest Response.

        January 24, 2000 email to my weak King County Representative, David Irons, No Honest Response.

        January 26, 2000 email to my weak King County Representative, David Irons, allowing him time to get adjusted to his new responsibilities.

        January 22, 2000 email to the City of Sammamish Council, describing the federal tax fraud.

        January 23, 2000 email from Don Gerend, City of Sammamish Council, offered support, but did nothing.

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

        January 31, 2000 email to Norm Maleng, the Prosecutor, challenging his participation in federal tax fraud. No Response.

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

        July 4, 2000 email to Senator John McCain describing the federal tax fraud scheme in King County, Washington. No Response.

        July 4, 2000 email to my weak King County Representative, David Irons, explaining that Irons had failed to take a stand against the illegal actions of the County.

        August 9, 2000 email to David Irons, describing King County's criminal actions and expressing my willingness to defend my rights and my property with a gun.

           The County's stonewalling was very effective. I write this webpage more than eight years later and have never received an honest answer to my questions and demands, even in the courts. In my experience, King County goes to court to lie and manipulate the truth. This is spelled out in the Countyís briefs and maneuvers in our lawsuit.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Slander:

           Indicating oneís willingness to defend himself with a gun is morally right, and allowed by Article I Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, but it's a very bad tactic in politically correct King County, as I discovered. The letters, directly above, show fifteen months of lies, and stonewalling by the King County leadership. My last letter in this chain-of-frustration finally prompted a reply from King County Executive, Ron Sims. His reply begins King County's campaign of slander against me. In addition, Ron Sims threatened to falsely prosecute me for a felony. The slander and threat are discussed in detail in the next section.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    2. Slander: The Prosecutor of King County manufactured lies about me to discredit me in the community and the courts, and to threaten me with false felony prosecution:

           In reply to my email on August 9, 2000, shown above, I received a slanderous and threatening letter from King County Executive Ron Sims, dated August 24, 2000. In that letter, Sims claimed I had stated that I intended to "shoot County employees on the corridor". That statement by Ron Sims was a slanderous lie. One can prove that it is a slanderous lie by first reading Sims 8-24-2000 letter to me, which is provided directly below, then reading the email letters which Sims refers to as a basis of his slander. All of those email letters are also linked below. One will realize that Sims did not address any of my accusations of fraud, theft, and trespassing. He did not offer to finally communicate with me and explain the County's illegal actions. Instead, he mischaracterized my willingness to legally defend myself against King County's criminal acts as an illegal threat by me to randomly kill County employees. Sims characterized me as a mass murderer, and threatened to falsely prosecute me for a felony. Here is that slanderous and threatening letter by Ron Sims. (my emphasis in bold font.)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        August 24, 2000

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

        Dear Mr. Rasmussen:

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

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

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

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

        Sincerely,

        Ron Sims
        King County Executive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

           Under Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, I have the right to defend myself with a gun. Ron Sims claimed I was illegally threatening to "shoot County employees". My email letters show that I was expressing my intention to legally defend my property and my life. I couldn't take a chance the County's slanderous mischaracterization of me would be accepted by a jury and that I would be saddled with a false felon conviction. Considering the bias and dishonesty I later found in King County Superior Court, the threat of false prosecution by Ron Sims is chilling. I made my living as a commercial pilot. If I were falsely convicted of a felony, I would lose my license and my livelihood. Simsí slander and dishonest threat was real and substantial. King County didn't attempt to prosecute me for my alleged "threats" because it would have exposed its participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. The County's first legal action against me was a motion for a preliminary injunction in King County Superior Court. In the ensuing hearing, the King Prosecutor presented slanderous declarations from King County employees Jennifer Knauer and Shelley Marelli. The absurdity of these slanderous and perjurious declarations can be understood by reading the annotated declarations hyperlinked below and the annotated transcript of the hearing.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

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

        Read an annotated transcript of King County v. Rasmussen, Preliminary Injunction Hearing,
        King County Superior Court, September 14, 2000

    3. My own representative on the King County council failed to keep his promise to investigate the crime.

           When I discovered the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme in early 2000, my representative on the King County Council, David Irons, was just assuming office. I sent Irons an email letter on January 18, 2000 which described the wrongdoing by King County in establishing ELST. We talked on the phone and I confirmed our discussion in an email on January 26, 2000. Irons asked for two or three weeks to fully address the illegal activities I outlined in my January 18th letter to him. He never kept that promise. I don't know if Irons agreed to ignore the ELS federal tax fraud scheme, or if David Irons was just a weak character who wouldn't take a stand against the County's criminal activity. In any case, Irons ignored his commitment to me to investigate the crimes committed by the County. On February 7, 2000, I wrote a letter to David Irons and the leadership of the County which spelled out the federal tax fraud scheme and asked for the Executive and the Council to investigate King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng's participation in the crime. Of course, David Irons ignored that letter, too, again refusing to stand up for the rights of his constituents. On the 4th of July, 2000, I wrote a letter to Irons that explained that I felt I had no choice but to use a gun to defend my property against the illegal activities of the County. Irons' only concern was that he could somehow get into trouble. He expressed no concern that the County was acting illegally. We talked on July 10th and I promised a more complete letter which I sent to Irons on August 9th, 2000. When David Irons made the decision to ignore the criminal activity of King County, he became an active participant 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.)

    4. Former King County Executive Gary Locke may have been involved in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme.

           Gary Locke was King County Executive in the mid 1990's when the County negotiated its participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. There are two possibilities to explain Locke's involvement. Either Gary Locke was aware of the tax fraud scheme and authorized the County's participation, or he was so unaware of what went on under his stewardship that he was a completely incompetent administrator. When I blew the whistle on the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme with an email to the leadership of King County on February 7, 2000, Gary Locke had left his position as King County Executive and moved into the Washington State Governor's office. My "whistle blower" letter was addressed to the succeeding executive, Ron Sims, and the King County Council. Gary Locke was included in that email address as a "CC", and did not respond to my description of the ELS tax fraud scheme.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           It appears that the central criminal in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme was King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng. Maleng "served" as Prosecutor for many years and had great influence with the powerful in King County. Gary Locke worked for Maleng earlier in his career. If the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme is ever investigated and prosecuted, it will be important to investigate Locke's involvement.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

The Courts: Dishonest Opinions, Constitutional Violations, Collaboration

         The evidence of the federal tax fraud scheme which I present in this section is the most troubling of all. We will always have some crooked judges. This problem is supposed to be corrected by the appeal process. On appeal, the judges of the next higher court should look at the dishonesty of the lower court's decision and correct it. That process has broken down in our judicial system. Evidence of illegal judicial collaboration is seen in the opinions discussed below. Judges protect their fellow judges at the expense of we-the-people. There is treason in our courts.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The Federal Judiciary:

           There is no question that federal and State judges actively participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. To understand this, read the decisions associated with the judges and courts listed below. All of these federal and state decisions were decided by the judges illegally allowing summary judgment. Not one judge allowed the Rays or Rasmussens their constitutional right to establish the facts before a jury. This was an intentional violation of their Fifth Amendment right of due process. In the decisions listed below, you will find the dishonest manipulation of the facts and the law that allowed these judges to come to their predetermined opinions. Most disgusting, you will find the denial of appeal by the United States Supreme Court and the Washington State Supreme Court of opinions that obviously were decided dishonestly in the lower courts.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Federal District Judge Barbara Rothstein:
           Judge Rothstein issued an opinion in King County v. Rasmussen (2001) that is completely dishonest, and strongly suggests that she conspired with one or more of the other active participants in the tax fraud scheme in order to hide its evidence. Rothstein illegally allowed herself control of the case by misapplying the rules of summary judgment. Rothstein made up the facts that controlled the outcome of her decision. Rothstein intentionally denied my most basic constitutional right to establish the facts before jury. She repeatedly misapplied the law.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Senior Federal Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher:
           Circuit Judges Betty Binns Fletcher, Ronald M. Gould, and District Judge Mary H. Murguia comprised the three judge panel hearing my appeal of Rothstein's decision. Their unanimous opinion, King County v. Rasmussen (2002), was authored by Fletcher. All of Rothstein's dishonesty was upheld. This begs the question: Are Rothstein and Fletcher personal friends? If they are, did Judge Fletcher impose herself on the appeal panel to protect her fellow judge from impeachment and prosecution? There is nothing honest in Fletcher's decision. There must be a "good" reason for her to abandon the Constitution the law, and to destroy my rights.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
           On further appeal, I was refused en banc consideration by the full Ninth Circuit court. Not one judge in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was willing to uphold the rules of summary judgment which were so obviously violated by Rothstein and Fletcher. Not one judge in the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was willing to allow me to present the facts in contradiction to the "made-up-facts" that Judge Rothstein concocted to justify her predetermined outcome to my case. Not one judge in the full Ninth Circuit Court would consider the misapplication of law made by Rothstein. I believe that the most cowardly and dishonest decisions by appeals court judges are the refusal to accept worthy appeals. In this case, a federal district court judge participated in a federal tax fraud scheme with her decision. She was protected by a very dishonest three judge Ninth Circuit appeals panel. Then, the full court refused to correct the obvious dishonesty of its fellow federal judges. Apparently, judges protect their fellow judges is the highest priority in Ninth Circuit courts, not the Constitution, the law, or the rights of Americans. Of course, we could not characterize the district court decision and the decision of the three judge appeals panel as dishonest in our en banc appeal. Lawyers know that drawing attention to the dishonesty of a judge will guarantee the loss of the case and will result in the lawyer being reprimanded. It doesn't matter whether the judges were crooked, or not. The appeals courts will not tolerate judicial complaints from lawyers. It's counterproductive, if not suicidal, for a lawyer or his client to criticize a judge during the appeals process.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Understand how judges punish lawyers who file complaints of judicial misconduct.

      Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Schroeder:
           I filed a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct with the Ninth Circuit on February 10, 2004. The complaint detailed the federal tax fraud scheme that Rothstein and the appeals panel hid with their opinions, (King County v. Rasmussen 2001 and King County v. Rasmussen 2002) and described dishonest actions by the judges. Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Schroeder reviewed my complaint. I had to wait until my appeal possibilities were exhausted or else my case would have be poisoned by willingness of judges to protect each other at the expense of the rights of petitioners.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Understand that judges protect each other at the expense of the rights of the public.

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

           Federal judges act exactly like a powerful labor union. Judges protect each other at the expense of their "employer". In the case of federal judges, their employer is we-the-people. This most powerful union must be broken if the American people are to have a legitimate legal system.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      The United States Supreme Court:
           The United States Supreme Court refused to accept my appeal. The Court is aware that it overturns a very high percentage of Ninth Circuit decisions, yet it does nothing to protect the folks who are harmed by this rogue court. Since the United States Supreme Court takes only about 3% of the cases appealed, where do the other 97% go for justice? The United States Supreme Court has a responsibility to the Constitution, the law, and the rights of Americans, not a responsibility to allow the Ninth Circuit to chronically destroy those rights. If we are to have a legitimate judicial system in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court must deal with the dishonest activity of its Ninth circuit judges.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The State Judiciary:

      Judge Ronald E. Cox, Court of Appeals Division I, State of Washington :
           Judge Ronald E. Cox, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals Division I, State of Washington and Judge Ann Schindler used the Rothstein decision as a basis of their majority opinion, Ray v. King County (2004). The Ray case decided exactly the same issue as the Rothstein decision: What interest was granted to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway by Bill and Mary Hilchkanum in 1887? Judges Cox and Schindler prevailed with their dishonest analysis, in spite of the correctly explained application of the law by dissenting Judge Baker. All three judges on the appeals panel ignored the obvious disagreement with the material facts, and allowed the resolution of the lawsuit by the illegally use of summary judgment. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Judge William W. Baker, Court of Appeals Division I, Dissenting:
           Judge William W. Baker dissented, and described what should have been the correct application of Washington State legal precedent. Read Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting) to understand his disagreement with the majority opinion. Unfortunately, Baker failed to dissent on the illegal use of summary judgment. With no agreement on the material facts, Baker tried to argue which material facts were correct, when he should have argued the rule that disputed material facts are tried before a jury. The facts belong to a jury. The law is the responsibility of the judge. Why did Judge Baker forget that most basic rule? (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      The Washington State Supreme Court:
           The Washington State Supreme Court denied the Rayís appeal. This is very troublesome in the face of the dissenting opinion by Judge William W. Baker at the appeals level. With the correct application of the law presented, and the obvious disagreement with the facts that controlled the case, the Supreme Court denied the appeal and now must take responsibility for the dishonesty of its Court of Appeals, Division I, opinion. This denial did harm to the more than one hundred years of consistently applied common law which sets the rules for construing railroad right-of-way deeds. But, the greater harm was in the denial of the Ray's constitutional right of due process. There are critical material facts which were in disagreement in the Appeals Court opinion. Every judge in the Washington State Supreme Court knows that disputed material facts are resolved by a jury, yet these judges denied appeal in a non-decision that is both cowardly and dishonest. It's obvious that powerful politicians, activists, and/or judges, convinced the Judges of the Washington State Supreme Court to protect them from prosecution for their part in the federal tax fraud scheme. In protecting these powerful folks, the Judges of the Washington State Supreme became participants in the tax fraud scheme, too.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        View a public letter to the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court regarding their failure in refusing appeal.

      King County Superior Court:
           My lawsuit, King County v. Rasmussen, was initially filed by the King County Prosecutor in Superior Court. The first appearance was before Judge Donald Haley on September 14, 2000 to hear argument for a preliminary injunction against me. I came away from that hearing with the belief that we would get no justice from Haley. We immediately moved the lawsuit to Federal District Court.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        Read the annotated transcript of King County v. Rasmussen, Preliminary Injunction Hearing, September 14, 2000 to understand why we moved to federal court.

The Courts: Starting in 2010, ELS Deeds were Determined to be Easements:

         After I lost all hope for justice in the federal Courts, and after Gerald and Kathy Ray lost all hope for justice in Washington State courts, neighbors of the Ray's found a little justice in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims. In 2010, a number of parties were allowed to proceed with taking claims with respect to the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way. Federal Judge Marion Horn decided that a number of parties could proceed with taking claims based on the ELS railbanking. In 2010, Judge Horn prohibited the Rays from proceeding with their claim, based on collateral estoppel, but allowed about fourteen other parties to proceed with taking claims based on the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. In addition a number of other parties were allowed to proceed with taking claims based on several other ELS SLS&E right-of-way deeds. In 2011, and 2012, Judge Horn issued opinions finding that all of these parties were eligible for compensation for the ELS takings. Please read the following opinions to understand that many ELS right-of-way deeds to the SLS&E were determined to be easements, and the folks defrauded by King County's taking were due compensation.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         While these parties have been allowed compensation, what rights do the folks, who have the former BNSF right-of-way on their land, have to the land which has been found to be an easement by Federal Judge Horn? My guess is that the crooks who control King County are still claiming title to all of the ELS right-of-way, in spite of Judge Horn's opinion. This is consistent with the corruption I've found in the King County leadership and the federal and State courts of Washington. Pathetic!     (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View Beres v. United States (2010).

      View Beres v. United States (2011).

      View Beres v. United States (2012).

      Understand the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.

Based on Beres, where do the East Lake Sammamish Owners of the Land under the ELS right-of-way Stand?

     For the residents of East Lake Sammamish who understand U.S. Federal Court of Claims Judge Horn has determined all the ELS right-of-way deeds submitted to her are easements, I have the following advice:

         If you are an East Lake Sammamish resident with a portion of the ELS right-of-way on your property, it appears that you fit into one of three categories

      First, if you do not have a chain of title which shows you own the land under the right-of-way, you have no legal claim. You have every right to be offended by what King County and judges have done in committing federal tax fraud, but no more than any other citizen. I believe that this is a very small number of ELS residents.

      Second, if you have been compensated, or will be compensated, as a result of a Rails-to-Trails takings claim, Congratulations! You have "fought" for a number of years and are being compensated. If you tried to compromise with a very crooked King County for a number of years, how did that work? The arrogant disregard for your rights by King County should be apparent to you. But the question now is: Does King County now admit that the land under the ELS right-of-way is owned by you? I assume not. Even though U.S. Federal Court of Claims Judge Marian Horn has decided the Hilchkanum deed, and several other ELS SLS&E right-of-way deeds, granted easements, I assume the criminals in King County government are not going to recognize your ownership. Instead, the slimy lawyers in the King County Prosecutor's Office will rely on Ray v. King County (2004) and the denial of appeal by your Washington State Supreme Court as proof of the County's ownership. You will be jerked around in ways you can't even imagine right now. It will cost you money, time, and frustration. You didn't win, you lost...at least you will lose for years, and years, and years to come. This is a very small number of ELS residents. Read Beres v. United States (2011) and Beres v. United States (2012) to understand who these people are.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Third, if you do have a chain of title which shows you own the land under the right-of-way, but never made a claim for the harm done by King County's false claim of ownership, you are really screwed! The Rails-to-Trails Act was written by Congress, but has been interpreted into something very different by federal judges. Your land was bargained away by BNSF and King County, and you were given no notice or allowed any part in the tax fraud scheme they concocted. Doesn't it seem a little wrong that the owners of a property have no input into a significant transaction that affects their lives and their property ownership? Welcome to the Rails-to-Trails Act! You are now too late to make a claim because STB bureaucrats and federal judges have set a time limit that defrauds folks like you, who learn too late. Now, King County will jerk you around forever, with the knowledge that lawyers in the Prosecutor's office and other participants in East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme have convinced judges to protected them from prosecution by falsely giving ownership of your land to the County. You're screwed! I believe that this is a very large number of ELS residents. So,you're in good company, and "Misery loves company". Get used to it, or move away. I don't recommend you getting "pissed off". The lawyers in the King County Prosecutor's Office just love to see that. They have a plan if you protest. It's called "Lie, Stonewall, and Slander". That's what they did to me.
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)