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

An Index of the Legal Actions Related to 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.



Background:

         There are two lawsuits in Washington State which are directly associated with the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. I discovered the tax fraud scheme in early 2000 and challenged the leadership of King County to explain its illegal actions. My lawsuit, King County v. Rasmussen, began at the end of that year. A second lawsuit associated with the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme is Ray v. King County. Since the property right contested in Ray is based on the same 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E), the same dishonest legal arguments ensued from the King County Prosecutor and the same criminal actions ensued from the bench.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         2013 Update: In early 2013 I found out that a number of parties along East Lake Sammamish were allowed compensation for the takings associated with the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. This process began with the Beres v. United States decision in 2005 by U.S. Federal Court of Claims Judge Marion Horn. In later opinions, Judge Horn found that the parties may proceed with taking claims. Even later, Judge Horn found the parties were due compensation. The issues were turned over for determination of how much compensation was due in Horn's most recent opinion in 2012. The four opinions associated with the Federal Court of Claims are displayed below. For the residents of East Lake Sammamish, Washington, the issue of ownership of the land underlying their railroad rights-of-way likely will still be unresolved. The crooked politicians and bureaucrats who dominate King County politics will undoubtedly continue to rely on the prior Federal and State opinions which granted fee simple ownership to King County. It's hard to find any honesty in the politicians or lawyers for King County, Washington.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         This page first provides links to un-annotated versions of the Rasmussen, Ray and Beres opinions. The next section provides significant briefing and exhibits, and other legal actions related to King County v. Rasmussen and Ray v. King County.



The King County v. Rasmussen, Ray v. King County, and Beres v. United States opinions (without annotation by John Rasmussen):

      View King County v. Rasmussen (2001).

      View King County v. Rasmussen (2002).

      View Ray v. King County (2004).

      View Beres v. United States (2005).

      View Beres v. United States (2010).

      View Beres v. United States (2011).

      View Beres v. United States (2012).



Index of the King County v. Rasmussen Significant Documents:

    King County v. Rasmussen (2001) - Federal District Court

      King County Brief "Brief in Support of King County's Motion for Summary Judgment" (February 15, 2001)

        Companion Document "Brief in Support of King County's Motion for Summary Judgment"
        (Comments and Analysis by John Rasmussen - This is not a court record.)

        King County Exhibit 4 (Simpson right-of-way deed to Milwaukee Railroad, May 4, 1907)

        King County Exhibit 5-1 (Warranty Deed Bill Hilchkanum to Chris Nelson, February 27, 1904)

        King County Exhibit 5-2 (Quit Claim deed Annie Hilchkanum to Bill Hilchkanum, August 25, 1899)

      Rasmussen Brief "Brief Opposing King County Motion for Summary Judgment" (April 12, 2001)
      (The portions highlighted in yellow were struck by Judge Rothstein.)

        John Rasmussen declaration to Judge Rothstein. (The portions highlighted in yellow were struck by Judge Rothstein.)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 1, struck by Judge Rothstein. (Rasmussen Study of Easement-Fee Issues)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 2 (Freedom of Information document obviously altered by the King County Prosecutor in order to cover up his crime.)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 3, struck by Judge Rothstein. (Report by a King County title officer stating his opinion that the right-of-way was probably an easement. See: item 9 on page 2, item 9 on page 4, item 9 on page 6, and item 9 on page 8.)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 4, struck by Judge Rothstein. (BNSF instructed the disgraced accounting firm Arthur Andersen to appraise the land under the right-of-way as if BNSF owned it all. See page 8.
          Note: 3.8mb file.)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 5, struck by Judge Rothstein. (Draft sale agreement between BNSF and TLC showing TLC was aware of the dishonest appraisal. This draft agreement appears to have been altered in order to hide TLC's knowledge of the fraud.)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 6, struck by Judge Rothstein. (Final sale agreement between BNSF and TLC, with evidence that TLC hid its participation in the tax fraud scheme.)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 7, struck by Judge Rothstein. (Final sale agreement between TLC and King County, showing that King County agreed to accept the phony donation of land which the County knew BNSF did not own. See page 4.)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 8 (Slanderous and threatening letter from King County Executive Ron Sims,
          August 24, 2000)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 9, struck by Judge Rothstein. (Rasmussen Study of Spur Line Issue)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 10, struck by Judge Rothstein. (Rasmussen Study of Takings Issues)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 11, struck by Judge Rothstein. (TLC petition for abandonment exemption)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 12, struck by Judge Rothstein. (STB decision in favor of TLC abandonment exemption)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 13, struck by Judge Rothstein. (1999 GAO report on Rails-to-Trails, made to
          U.S. Senator Sam Brownback)

          John Rasmussen Exhibit 14, struck by Judge Rothstein. (1998 STB Offer of Financial Assistance by RIRPA)

        Stephen Graddon declaration to Judge Rothstein.

          Stephen Graddon Exhibit 1. (Rasmussen Ownership Research Report)

          Stephen Graddon Exhibit 2 - Note: The following documents are relevant pages from Graddon Exhibit 2. I've selected documents that relate to Hilchkanum's homesteading, right-of-way deed, and subsequent real estate deeds. These are the documents that are material to the dishonest opinions by federal and State judges in their maneuvers to hide 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.)

          June 28, 1876 Hilchkanum Homestead Application

          June 28, 1876 Hilchkanum Homestead Affidavit

          December 4, 1879 Affidavit for Correction of Hilchkanum Homestead Application

          October 24, 1882 Petition for Amendment of Hilchkanum Homestead Application

          January 9, 1884 Final Affidavit for Homestead Proof

          January 9, 1884 Testimony of Hilchkanum for Homestead Proof

          January 9, 1884 Testimony of Monohon for Homestead Proof

          January 9, 1884 Testimony of Tibbets for Homestead Proof

          March 6, 1884 Denny Declaration re Late Homestead Proof

          March 24, 1884 Hilchkanum Declaration re Late Homestead Proof

          March 25, 1884 Tibbets Declaration re Late Homestead Proof

          March 29, 1884 Hilchkanum Homestead Final Certificate

          May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum Right-of-Way Deed to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E)

          July 24, 1888 Hilchkanum Homestead Patent

          December 16, 1898 Warranty Deed Bill Hilchkanum to Annie Hilchkanum

          August 25, 1899 Quit Claim Deed Annie Hilchkanum to Bill Hilchkanum

          February 27, 1904 Warranty Deed Bill Hilchkanum to Chris Nelson for Government Lot 1

          March 15, 1904 Warranty Deed Bill Hilchkanum to Chris Nelson for Government Lot 2

          September 3, 1904 Warranty Deed Bill Hilchkanum to Edward Sanders for Government Lot 5

          June 30, 1904 Warranty Deed Bill Hilchkanum to John Herder for Government Lots 3 and 5

      King County Brief "Brief in Reply to Defendants' Opposition to King County's Motion for Summary Judgment" (April 19, 2001)

        Companion Document "Brief in Reply to Defendants' Opposition to King County's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Comments and Analysis by John Rasmussen - This is not a court record.)



    King County v. Rasmussen (2002) - Ninth Circuit Three Judge Panel

      Rasmussen Brief "Defendants-Appellants’ John and Nancy Rasmussens’ Opening Appeal Brief" (August 19, 2001)

      King County Brief "Plaintiff-Appellee King County's Brief" (September 5, 2001)

        Companion Document "Plaintiff-Appellee King County's Brief" (Comments and Analysis by
        John Rasmussen - This is not a court record.)

      Rasmussen Brief "Defendants-Appellants’ John and Nancy Rasmussens’ Reply Brief" (October 8, 2001)



    King County v. Rasmussen (2002) - Ninth Circuit Appeal En Banc

      Rasmussen Brief "Defendants-Appellants’ John and Nancy Rasmussens’ Petition for Rehearing and
      Suggestion of Appropriateness for Rehearing En Banc"
      (August 30, 2002)

      Note: This appeal for rehearing en banc was denied by the Ninth Circuit.



    King County v. Rasmussen (2003) - United States Supreme Court Appeal

      Rasmussen Brief "Petition for Writ of Certiorari" United States Supreme Court, (January 9, 2003)

      Note: This appeal was denied by the United States Supreme Court.



    King County v. Rasmussen (2004) - Complaint of Judicial Misconduct - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

      "Complaint of Judicial Misconduct", Filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, February 10, 2004

      Order to Dismiss Rasmussen Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, Issued by Chief Judge Mary Schroeder,
      Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, April 13, 2004



    King County v. Rasmussen (2000) - Preliminary Injunction Hearing in King County Superior Court

      Note from John Rasmussen: This preliminary injunction hearing in King County Superior Court on September 14, 2000 is presented last, even though it is chronologically first. I present it last because it has little to do with the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and everything to do with the "Slander" portion of a King County technique I call "Lie, Stonewall and Slander". The hearing was a sham. In the annotated hearing and declarations hyperlinked below, I show ridiculous, undocumented lies manufactured by King County to discredit me in court and to threaten my livelihood. If this website gains public attention, the participants in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme will try to use this slander technique again in order to protect themselves. Welcome to politically correct government, King County style! (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      King County v. Rasmussen (2000) - Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Held in King County Superior Court, September 14, 2000

        King County: "Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support Thereof"

          King County: "Declaration of Scott D. Johnson"

            Scott Johnson Exhibit 2: Letter from John Rasmussen to David Irons on August 9, 2000
            (including nineteen attached unanswered letters)

          King County: "Declaration of Jennifer Knauer"

          King County: "Declaration of Shelley Marelli"

          King County: "Declaration of Neil DeGoojer"

            DeGoojer Exhibit 1: Commonwealth Title Insurance Policy, for King County Dept. of Open Space.

        Rasmussen: "Defendants' Brief Opposing Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Bilateral No Contact Order, Change of Venue"

          Rasmussen: "Declaration of John Rasmussen"

          Rasmussen: "Declaration of Nancy Rasmussen"

      King County v. Rasmussen (2000) - Preliminary Injunction Ruling, September 15, 2000




Index of the Ray v. King County Significant Documents:

    Note from John Rasmussen: I include this dishonest Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One opinion, Ray v. King County (2004), because it echoes the dishonest decisions in King County v. Rasmussen. Both sets of opinions improperly construe the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway in 1887. Both sets of opinions hide the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme by denying the constitutional right of due process, illegally using summary judgment, making up material facts, and misapplying the law. The denial of appeal of this dishonest opinion by the Washington State Supreme Court guarantees that the citizens of Washington State cannot expect their rights to be recognized in the courts of the State.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I have not asked for the support of John Groen, the Ray's attorney, in the establishment of this website or for his agreement with my criticism of federal and State judges. So, the briefs that I hyperlink below are from his appearance in King County Superior court in 2001, and were provided to me at that time. I provide these briefs to show to merits of his arguments, which were certainly repeated in his briefs to the Washington State Court of Appeals and the Washington State Supreme Court. The comments, hyperlinked in Ray v. King County (2004) directly below, are mine alone. John Groen did not contribute to my analysis of this opinion.

    Ray v. King County (2004) (Majority Opinion) WA Court of Appeals, Division One

    Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting Opinion) WA Court of Appeals, Division One

      Ray/Groen Briefs to King County Superior Court in 2001:

      Ray Brief: - Ray v. King County (2001) - "Motion for Summary Judgment", July 27, 2001

      Ray Brief: - Ray v. King County (2001) - "Ray's Opposition to County's Motion for Summary Judgment",
      August 13, 2001

      Ray Brief: - Ray v. King County (2001) - "Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment",
      August 20, 2001