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

Factors Explaining the Hilchkanum's Intentions and Participation in their Real Estate deeds.

by John Rasmussen

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



Introduction:

    The Hilchkanum's intentions and participation in their deeds were illegally resolved by the judges.

         The Hilchkanum's intentions and participation in their right-of-way and real estate deeds are material facts. Disagreement with material facts are resolved by a jury, not resolved by judges. In King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and Ray v. King County, the federal and State judges denied the constitutional right of the Rasmussens and the Rays to resolve disputed material facts before a jury. Instead the judges illegally allowed summary judgment, then sorted through disputed material facts and picked out the ones which supported their predetermined outcome to the lawsuits. That's how things are done in the Washington State and federal courts of King County, Washington. The constitutional rights of individual Americans are neither recognized nor enforced.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The judges ignored facts and the law in their illegal determination of the Hilchkanum's intentions and participation.

         I identify three factors that affected the analysis of the Hilchkanum's participation and intentions in their right-of-way deed to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E) deed, and in their subsequent real estate deeds. They are:

      1: The history of Native Americans (Indians) in the late 1800's:

      2: The federal and Washington State laws enacted to protect Native Americans at that time:

      3: Specific Hilchkanum documents, presented to the court, which explain their behavior and intentions with their deeds:

         The Federal and State judges who were responsible for construing the Hilchkanum's right-of-way deed intentionally ignored all three of these factors. In King County v. Rasmussen (2001), Federal District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein struck my description of the Hilchkanum's participation and intentions in their deed. Further, she struck my attorney's description of Hilchkanum's ability to participate, falsely accusing us of racial bias. Once she had eliminated our descriptions of the Hilchkanum's participation in their deed, Judge Rothstein manufactured ridiculous undocumented facts about the Hilchkanums which supported her predetermined outcome to my lawsuit. Rothstein denied my right to establish the truth before a jury. The related decisions, King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and Ray v. King County (2004) adopted Rothstein's dishonest tactics. These federal and State judges covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme with their opinions, and protected the active participants in the crime.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)



Three Factors Explaining the Hilchkanum's Participation and Intentions:

1. The history of Native Americans (Indians) in the late 1800's:

         When the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed was construed in court, and appealed, not one judge would recognize the historical disadvantage Native Americans had in those days. Not one judge in the Ninth circuit and the Washington State court systems would recognize that, as the white settlers moved west in the 1800's, the Native Americans were displaced, defeated, and forced to give up their lands and their traditional way of life. When the Natives resisted they were killed or forced onto reservations. Every judge who considered the intentions of the Hilchkanums in their right-of-way deed chose to ignore that history. The Hilchkanums were Native American Indians. Instead, every judge agreed with Federal District Judge Rothstein that the Hilchkanums had the legal skills and understanding of a lawyer. They agreed with Rothstein that Hilchkanum actually authored the words in his right-of-way deed. They agreed to this fact even though no document was presented to show this very unusual skill in a Native American of that day. They agreed to this fact even when they were made aware that the Hilchkanums were illiterate and could not even sign their own names. More important, every judge agreed that Rothstein had the right to manufacture these material facts in defiance of the constitutional right of the parties to resolve disputed material facts before a jury. The judge's dishonest behavior covers up East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. We have crooked judges because it is almost impossible to hold them responsible for their dishonest behavior in our present political system. Impeachment is the duty of our legislators, and impeaching dishonest judges is about their last priority.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         It is not the responsibility of the parties in a lawsuit to teach basic American history to the judge. Here are a few historical highlights that pertain to the lives and times of the Hilchkanums.

      1805 Lewis and Clark Expedition enters the present state of Washington on October 10, 1805. (Source: http://www.historylink.org)

      1843 Bill Hilchkanum was born in a native environment, in 1843 or 1844, about eleven years before his tribe was forced to a reservation as a result of its treaty with Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      1850 Donation Land Claims Act takes effect on September 27, 1850, spurring American settlement of Oregon Territory. This act was similar to the later Homesteading Act of 1862. (Source: http://www.historylink.org)

      1851 Denny Party scouts arrive at mouth of Duwamish River in future King County on September 25, 1851. The Denny party was met that day by Chief Seattle, the leader of the Duwamish and Suquamish tribes. These tribes were friendly and helpful to the white settlers. Donation Land Claims during the next few days establish the first white settlement of the area now known as Seattle, Washington. (Source: http://www.historylink.org)

      1851 Bill Hilchkanum was of the Duwamish tribe. He would have been a boy of about eight years when the Denny party first contacted his tribe in the fall of 1851. The Duwamish helped the Denny party survive that first winter. In later years David Denny was the white man who helped Hilchkanum with his legal dealings. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      1854 In 1854 and 1855, most Indian tribes in the Territory signed treaties with Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens, ceding the right to their lands and agreeing to live on reservations. (Source: http://www.historylink.org)

      1855 Indian wars followed in 1855 and 1856 as the tribes recognized the unfairness of the Stevens treaties. These conflicts between Indians and whites continued for a number of years throughout the Territory. In every case the Indians were defeated. Retribution was common by angry U.S. troops and white settlers. (Source: http://www.historylink.org)

      1858 Nisqually Chief Leschi is hanged on February 19, 1858. His execution was based on trumped-up charges. The real reason for his hanging was his opposition to his tribe's treaty with Governor Stevens, which he signed under protest, or perhaps never signed at all. There is little doubt Leschi's hanging was meant to be a lesson to other rebellious Natives. (Source: http://www.historylink.org)

      1862 Smallpox kills 14,000 Northwest Coast Indians from April to December 1862. The Smallpox was intentionally spread to the Northwest Coast tribes by the forced evacuation of infected natives by white settlers on Vancouver Island. Twenty-six canoes, containing infected Indians, were towed north to infect and destroy about half of the Native population. "The gunboat Forward (Captain Lascelles), took a 15-day trip to Fort Rupert towing 26 canoes full of natives. Included were 20 canoes of Hydahs [Haida], five canoes of other Indians from the Queen Charlotte Islands, and one canoe of Stickeen [Tlingit] Indians." (Quoted from http://www.historylink.org)

      1862 The Homestead Act of 1862 was the primary act responsible for the settlement of the west. (Source: Commonly understood U.S. history.)

      1875 The Act of March 3, 1875 extended homesteading rights to American Indians. In order to participate, Indians were required to give up their "tribal relations" and were not allowed to sell their homesteaded land for five years. (Source: The Act of March 3, 1875, Sec 15 and 16 - See below.)

      1876 Bill Hilchkanum files to homestead on the east side of Lake Squak (now known as Lake Sammamish) as an American Indian under the authority of the Act of March 3, 1875, and the Homestead Act of 1862. Date of Homestead Entry is June 28, 1876. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      1884 Bill Hilchkanum makes final proof of his homestead on January 9, 1884. There was a problem. By law, Hilchkanum was required to make final proof within seven years. Since he entered his homestead on June, 28 1976, his final proof should have been made by June 28, 1883. This error generated explanations that showed Hilchkanum to be illiterate and completely dependent on his white friends to aid him in legal matters. The documents that explain this situation are displayed, in historical order, in the third section of this note, below. The document describing Hilchkanum's homesteading error (March 24, 1884 Declaration by Bill Hilchkanum regarding Late Homestead Proof), and the other related historical documents, cast serious doubt on the honesty of the federal and state judges who found that Hilchkanum was an expert in homesteading law and real estate deeds. The judges came to their conclusions without any document to support their opinion. The mischaracterization of the Hilchkanums as legal experts was critical to the judge's dishonest finding that the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E Railway was written by Hilchkanum. The judges were required by the Constitution and the law to allow disputed facts to be determined by a jury. The federal and state judges, who construed the Hilchkanum deeds, intentionally violated the rights of the Rasmussens and the Rays in order to hide the federal tax fraud scheme involved in the railbanking of the ELS right-of-way. (See the supporting Hilchkanum documents in the section below titled "Documents were presented to the court that describe the Hilchkanums and explain their participation and intentions in their real estate deeds.)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      1887 Bill and Mary Hilchkanum grant a right-of-way deed to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E). The grant is witnessed by David Denny, the white man who has helped the Hilchkanums with their homesteading legal issues. It is likely that Denny's friendship with Hilchkanum began when the Duwamish tribe assisted the Denny Party in 1851. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      1888 The Hilchkanum homestead patent is granted by President Grover Cleveland on July 24, 1888. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

         The history of Native American Indians, during the years that the Hilchkanums lived, covers a very turbulent time for the Natives. Hilchkanum witnessed the destruction of his tribe's traditional way of life. He witnessed the defeat of the tribes in Oregon/Washington Territory and the treaties that allowed white settlers to take their lands. Hilchkanum witnessed the lack of respect for the rights and the culture of Natives. Those Indians who "limped-off" the reservations to homestead among the whites, did so with the knowledge that they needed to be on their best behavior in order to coexist with white society. Indians were on the bottom rung of white society's ladder. Bill Hilchkanum lived in a time that it was not uncommon to find signs, posted in white stores, that read "No Dogs or Indians". This equated Native American Indians to dogs, and excluded them from white establishments. This was the times in which Hilchkanum lived.

         It is obscene that the federal and State judges desecrate this history of natives in Washington Territory by assigning the skill, learning, and status of white lawyers to the Hilchkanums. If this were the situation with the Hilchkanums, where is any document to justify this bizarre conclusion? There is none. In this case the judges manipulated the history of the times in order to force their predetermined outcome to the Ray and Rasmussen decisions. These judges willing altered the history of Washington Territory/State in order to protect their fellow judges and friends from being prosecuted for their participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. Altering and redefining the history of Native Americans in Washington Territory/State is a form of racism. In the last few years, the Duwamish have been denied federal recognition as a tribe. With federal and state judges willing to make up and alter their history, one has to question the fairness of that federal decision. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

2. The laws established to protect Native Americans at that time:

         There were several laws that protected Native American Indians from being taken advantage of by white settlers, at the time of the Hilchkanum's deeds. Here is a federal act:

      The Act of March 3, 1875 extended homesteading rights to American Indians, but they were not allowed to sell their homesteaded land for five years after receiving patent. This wasn't done to punish the Natives. It was done to protect them from white folks who would take their land through legal trickery. Requiring the Indian homestead land not be conveyed until five years after patent built a time buffer for the Natives to adjust to white society and the white legal system. Later, other public laws extended the period that Indians were required to hold their homesteaded lands prior to sale. Here is the portion of the federal law, The Act of March 3, 1875, that relates to these issues: (with my emphasis)

        Chapter 131   Mar. 3, 1875. | 18 Stat., 402

        SEC. 15

        "That any Indian born in the United States, who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and who has abandoned, or may hereafter abandon, his tribal relations, shall, on making satisfactory proof of such abandonment, under rules to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, be entitled to the benefits of the act entitled "An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain," approved May twentieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and the acts amendatory thereof, except that the provisions of the eighth section of the said act shall not be held to apply to entries made under this act:"

        "Provided, however, That the title to lands acquired by any Indian by virtue hereof shall not be subject to alienation or incumbrance, either by voluntary conveyance or the judgment, decree, or order of any court, and shall be and remain inalienable for a period of five years from the date of the patent issued therefor:"

        "Provided, That any such Indian shall be entitled to his distributive share of all annuities, tribal funds, lands, and other property, the same as though he had maintained his tribal relations; and any transfer, alienation, or incumbrance of any interest he may hold or claim by reason of his former tribal relations shall be void."

        SEC. 16

        "That in all cases in which Indians have heretofore entered public lands under the homestead-law, and have proceeded in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, or in which they may hereafter be allowed to so enter under said regulations prior to the promulgation of regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior under the fifteenth section of this act, and in which the conditions prescribed by law have been or may be complied with, the entries so allowed are hereby confirmed, and patents shall be issued thereon; subject, however, to the restrictions and limitations contained in the fifteenth section of this act in regard to alienation and incumbrance. [March 3, 1875.]"

         Also, there were Washington Territory/State laws that protected Native American Indians from being taken advantage of by white settlers. Here is a State law that was designed to protect Natives, such as the Hilchkanums: (with my emphasis)

      R.C.W. 64.20.020, Enacted Laws 1890, p. 500, §2.

        "Manner of conveyance. All deeds, conveyances, encumbrances or transfers of any nature and kind executed by any Indian, or in any manner disposing of any land, or interest therein, shall be by deed executed in the same manner as prescribed for the execution of deeds conveying real estate, or any interest therein, except that the same shall in all cases be acknowledged before a judge of a court of record. In taking said acknowledgment, the said judge shall explain to the grantor the contents of said deed or instrument, and the effect of the signing or execution thereof, and so certify the same in the acknowledgment, and before the same shall be admitted to record shall duly examine and approve the said deed or other instrument."

         The laws displayed above show that Indians, such as the Hilchkanums, were at a great disadvantage with legal dealings in those days. There would need to be some document or evidence to assume otherwise in the case of an individual Native American. Federal Judge Barbara Rothstein refused to consider the laws of the times that were designed to protect Natives, and instead found that the Hilchkanums were essentially lawyers. She did this without any declaration, document, fact, or history to support her bizarre conclusion. Her fellow federal judges supported her dishonest assumptions about Native Americans in the late 1800's and early 1900's. More important, these judges knew that they were denying the Rasmussen's and Ray's right to challenge these disputed facts, and establish the truth before a jury. When judges make up the facts, as they have in King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and Ray v. King County (2004), they can force their predetermined outcome on any case. That is how the Rasmussen's and Ray's land was stolen. That is how the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme got covered-up.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

3. Documents were presented to the court which describe the Hilchkanums and explain their participation and intentions in their real estate deeds.

         A significant number of documents were provided to the court which explain the participation and intentions of the Hilchkanums in their right-of-way deed to the SLS&E and their subsequent real estate transactions. The following is a partial list of these documents. The hyperlinks will take you to a photocopy of the actual document, and include a partial or full transcription. Of course, the judges in the Rasmussen and Ray lawsuits ignored these documents and refused Rasmussen's and Ray's constitutional right to present these documents to a jury in the determination of the Hilchkanum's participation and intentions in their real estate deeds.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      1: June 28, 1876: Hilchkanum provides an affidavit of his eligibility to homestead as an "Indian" under the Act of March 3, 1875. He swears that he has given up his affiliation with the Duwamish tribe. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      2: June 28, 1876: Hilchkanum's 1876 homestead application form. There is a handwritten correction, at a 45 degree angle, made on January 12, 1883. Hilchkanum had settled on lot 1, but lot 1 was not included in his 1876 homestead application. This is inconsistent with Federal District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein's description of Hilchkanum as an expert in homestead law, and an expert in the construction of real estate deeds. If he were an expert on real estate deeds, as Rothstein decided, he would have understood how to properly apply for his homestead. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.) (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      3: December 4, 1879: Hilchkanum provides an affidavit to correct his homestead application. He explains that his original application was in error because of a mistake by the white man who assisted him. In the declaration on March 6, 1884, shown below, we learn that David Denny was the white man who assisted Hilchkanum. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      4: October 24, 1882: Petition to correct Hilchkanum's homestead application is filed. Item 2: June 28, 1876, above, shows that this requested change to Hilchkanum's homestead application was entered on January 12, 1883. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      5: November 10, 1883: Hilchkanum files notice to give final proof of his homestead on January 9, 1884. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

        There was a problem with Hilchkanum making Homestead Proof on January 9, 1884. By law, Hilchkanum was required to make final proof within seven years of entry. Since he entered his homestead on June, 28 1976, his final proof should have been made by June 28, 1883. This error generated explanations and declarations that showed Hilchkanum to be illiterate and completely dependent on his white friends to aid him in legal matters. The following documents on this page explain this situation. These documents, describing Hilchkanum's homesteading error, cast serious doubt on the honesty of the federal and state judges who found that Hilchkanum was an expert in homesteading law and real estate deeds. The judges came to their conclusions without any document or fact to support their opinion. The mischaracterization of the Hilchkanums, as legal experts, was critical to the judge's dishonest finding that the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E Railway was written by Hilchkanum. The judges were required by the Constitution and the law to allow disputed facts to be resolved by a jury. The federal and state judges, who construed the Hilchkanum deeds, intentionally violated the rights of the Rasmussens (King County v. Rasmussen (2001)) and the Rays (Ray v. King County (2004)) in order to hide the federal tax fraud scheme involved in the railbanking of the ELS right-of-way.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      6: January 9, 1884: Hilchkanum final affidavit for homestead proof. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      7: January 9, 1884: Hilchkanum testimony for homestead proof. This document establishes Hilchkanum's age and approximate year of birth. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      8: January 9, 1884: Testimony of Martin Monohon for Hilchkanum's homestead proof. Monohon was a neighbor of the Hilchkanums. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      9: March 6, 1884: Declaration of David Denny, taking responsibility for the late filing of Hilchkanum's final homestead proof. This document shows Denny's participation in Hilchkanum's legal affairs, and explains Hilchkanum's dependence on Denny for legal assistance. This, and the other documents, paint a very different picture of Hilchkanum than was found by the judges who construed the Hilchkanum deed. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      10: March 24, 1884: Hilchkanum's declaration relating to late homestead proof. This document describes Hilchkanum's illiteracy and establishes his dependence on David Denny to assist him with business matters. This is inconsistent with the court's depiction of Hilchkanum's legal abilities. This document begs the question: Why wasn't this disputed material fact resolved by a jury, as required by law? (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      11: March 25, 1884: Declaration of George Tibbets explaining Hilchkanum's late homestead proof. Tibbets was one of Hilchkanum's neighbors. This, again, confirms Hilchkanum's illiteracy and his dependence on white friends to aid him with his legal matters. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      12: March 29, 1884: Final Homestead Certificate declaring Hilchkanum eligible for his homestead patent. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      13: May 9, 1887: Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the Seattle Lake shore and Eastern Railway. The granting clause of the deed is essentially identical to the Squire right-of-way deed, yet the judges characterized the deed as being written by Hilchkanum. The truth is that not one word in the deed was written by Hilchkanum. The lawyers for the Railway wrote the right-of-way deeds. Hilchkanum could not read or write the English language, as shown in the documents above. It was the Rasmussen's and the Ray's constitutional right to establish these facts before a jury. This right was denied in Ray v. King County and King County v. Rasmussen. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)
          (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      14: July 24, 1888: Hilchkanum homestead patent granted by the President of the United States. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

      15: December 16, 1898: Hilchkanum grants a warranty deed to his wife, Annie, for government lots one, three and five. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

        It is significant that Hilchkanum excepts the railroad right-of-way in Government Lots one and three. But, there is no consistency in the subsequent Hilchkanum deeds with this exception language. The federal judges in King County v. Rasmussen decided that the exception of the right-of-way in this deed indicated that the Hilchkanums intended their SLS&E right-of-way deed to grant fee simple title of the land under the right-of-way to the Railway. But, common law holds that an exception in a deed excepts whatever was originally granted. The exception of a right-of-way granted to a railroad would except an easement, under common law, and would not except fee simple title to the land. The exception of an easement in a deed merely notifies the grantee of the easement. It does not exempt, or withhold, fee simple transfer of land. The federal judges in King County v. Rasmussen came to their dishonest conclusion about the Hilchkanum's intentions in order to hide the federal tax fraud scheme used to railbank the East Lake Sammamish BNSF right-of-way. That's criminal of the federal judges, but what can we-the-people do about crooked judges? The answer: Very little or nothing.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        R.C.W. 64.20.020, which was enacted in 1890, required that Hilchkanum be briefed by a judge as to the effect of this deed, and a notation be made on the deed that this briefing has occurred. This required notation is not present. The federal and state judges that reviewed these subsequent Hilchkanum deeds ignored this important consideration in their predetermined opinions.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        In Hilchkanum's May 9, 1887 right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, he and his wife, Mary, granted the Railway a right-of-way on his government lots one, two and three. Subsequent Hilchkanum real estate deeds refer to two other wives. We were not able to document the reason that he had three different wives, Mary, Annie and Louise, as shown in his real estate deeds on this website. This deed to his wife, Annie, probably was for the purpose of sharing his homestead land with this new wife.

      16: August 25, 1899: Annie Hilchkanum quit claims back to her husband, Bill Hilchkanum, the property that he granted to her in the December 16, 1898 warranty deed. Government lots one and three were granted with the exception of the railroad rights-of-way. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

        R.C.W. 64.20.020, which was enacted in 1890, required that Hilchkanum be briefed by a judge as to the effect of this deed, and a notation be made on the deed that this briefing has occurred. This required notation is not present. The federal and state judges that reviewed these subsequent Hilchkanum deeds ignored this important consideration in their predetermined opinions.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      17: March 15, 1904: Hilchkanum sells all of his government lot 2 to Chris Nelson. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

        In King County v. Rasmussen, Federal District Judge Rothstein ignored the meaning of the words in the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed, and instead "found" the Hilchkanum's intentions in their right-of-way deed by looking at their subsequent real estate deeds. That is a very unusual, if not bizarre, method to examine a party's intentions in a deed. Assuming that Rothstein was justified with her unconventional approach, this deed should have been the most important subsequent real estate deed for Judge Rothstein to consider, because it transferred 96% of the right-of-way land contested in the King County v. Rasmussen lawsuit. But, Rothstein ignored the implications of this deed, and instead concentrated on a deed that was not in the chain of title to the property involved in the lawsuit. What complete dishonesty by Judge Rothstein! She did that because this deed to Chris Nelson did not except the right-of-way. This lack of the exception language in the deed suggests that the Hilchkanums granted only an easement to the Railway. So, Rothstein pretended that this deed did not exist. Instead, she "cherry picked" the Hilchkanum's subsequent deeds in order to find one she could misconstrue to support her predetermined outcome to King County v. Rasmussen. In the Hilchkanum's right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, they granted the Railway a right-of-way on their government lots one, two and three. In his deed to his wife, Annie, on December 16, 1898 (shown above) Hilchkanum excepted the right of way with his grant of government lots one and three. So, why didn't he except the right-of-way on this deed, which granted his ownership of government lot 2? It was the Constitutional right of the Rasmussens to resolve this fact before a jury. Federal Judge Rothstein does not believe in the Constitution. She intentionally denied the Rasmussen's right to establish the fact that Hilchkanum did not except the right-of-way, or the land under the right-of-way, in this most relevant deed. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          View maps and discussion that depict this issue with the Chris Nelson deed.

        R.C.W. 64.20.020, which was enacted in 1890, required that Hilchkanum be briefed by a judge as to the effect of this deed, and a notation be made on the deed that this briefing has occurred. This required notation is not present. The federal and state judges that reviewed these subsequent Hilchkanum deeds ignored this important consideration in their predetermined opinions.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        In King County v. Rasmussen (2001) and King County v. Rasmussen (2002) the federal judges found that the Hilchkanums were legal experts in deed construction and homesteading law. The documents, history, and laws of the times, suggest just the opposite. Read this deed to Chris Nelson and compare it to the other deeds by Hilchkanum. Then, decide if Hilchkanum wrote these very differently worded deeds, or if Hilchkanum allowed his friends and advisors to write his deeds. Decide if Hilchkanum was a legal expert, as the federal judges describe, or if Hilchkanum got his friends to write his deeds for him, with little understanding of the effect of those deeds. It was the cherished Constitutional right of the Rasmussens to have these facts resolved before a jury. Instead, the readers of this website become a "jury without power" in a judgment of our very corrupt judicial system.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      18: June 30, 1905: Hilchkanum sells portions of his government lots three and five to John Herder. (Source: See the supporting Hilchkanum document.)

        R.C.W. 64.20.020, which was enacted in 1890, required that Hilchkanum be briefed by a judge as to the effect of this deed, and a notation be made on the deed that this briefing has occurred. This required notation is not present. The federal and state judges that reviewed these subsequent Hilchkanum deeds ignored this important consideration in their predetermined opinions.

        It is very significant that Hilchkanum, again, does not except the railroad right-of-way in this deed. Since Hilchkanum excepted the railroad right-of-way on government lot three in his December 16, 1898 deed to his wife, Annie, why, oh why, oh why, did he not except the same right-of-way in this deed? Since the federal judges, who denied the Rasmussen's Constitutional right to establish this critical material fact before a jury, found so much meaning in the exception language, why did they not find significance in the lack of that exception language in this deed. Even more significant, why did the judges not explain the this inconsistency. The answer is this: The federal judges, that construed the Hilchkanum deeds in King County v. Rasmussen, had a dishonest agenda to hide the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. That is the only logical explanation for their actions. That question might have been answered in court if the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit did not lie and dismiss John Rasmussen's Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, February 10, 2004.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

          View maps and discussion that depict this issue with the John Herder deed.

        The lack of an exception for the right-of-way land, in this deed to Herder, is an indication that Hilchkanum believed he owned the land under the right-of-way, and his right-of-way grant to the SLS&E Railway was merely an easement. In King County v. Rasmussen this fact was briefed to the federal judges that construed the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. They ignored this implication, and instead concentrated on another, less relevant, deed that they then misconstrued to indicate that the Hilchkanums granted fee simple title of their land to the Railway. The federal judges "cherry picked" the extrinsic evidence in order to use less relevant and conflicted facts to support their dishonest opinions.
            (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

        The disagreements with material facts that I describe, here, are required to be resolved before a jury. A jury trial was not allowed by the very dishonest federal Ninth Circuit judiciary. There is no Constitution or law in the Ninth Circuit courts, just the power of an unchecked and arrogant judiciary to do whatever it pleases. It's the wild, wild west in these courts. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         These Hilchkanum documents, which were presented to the court, do not support the dishonest conclusion of the federal and State judges that the Hilchkanums were the author of their deeds and were knowledgeable in real estate and homesteading law. These documents paint a completely different picture. They show that the Hilchkanums were illiterate and dependent on white friends to help them with their legal needs. The variations and inconsistencies in their deeds indicate the Hilchkanums were not the authors of their real estate deeds, but rather various unidentified authors constructed their deeds for them. The history of the times, the laws enacted to protect Natives, and the specific Hilchkanum documents suggest that the Hilchkanums had very little participation in their deeds. It is particularly significant that the railroad right-of-way was excepted on some subsequent real estate deeds, but not excepted on others. Not only did the federal and state judges misconstrue the Hilchkanum's intentions based on this exception language, but they also refused the constitutional right of the parties to establish this critical material fact, the Hilchkanum's intentions, before a jury.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

What was presented to the judges in King County v. Rasmussen?

    Federal District Judge Rothstein struck our statements describing Hilchkanum's inability to participate in his deed.

         In King County v. Rasmussen (2001), we were blind-sided by Federal District Judge Rothstein. How could we anticipate that Rothstein would illegally assume that an illiterate Native American Indian would write his own deed to a railroad in 1887? King County did not make that ridiculous claim in its briefs, so we were not allowed the right to brief facts which show the Railway lawyers wrote the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. Judge Rothstein struck our characterization of the Hilchkanums being unable to participate in their deed so that she could substitute her bizarre, undocumented facts about this Native couple. My lawyer wrote this statement in his brief opposing summary judgment:
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "Bill Hilchkanum was an Indian. At the very best he was functionally illiterate, and 'made his mark' when he signed legal documents. Thus, all drafting of any ambiguous documents was completed by the railroad's representative. In this case Bill Hilchkanum and his wife signed a document that did not comport with the necessary elements for conveyance of a fee simple interest, because of the qualifying and limiting language of the document."
      [View my lawyer's brief to Judge Rothstein. Find this struck statement on page 2.]

         The above statement was struck by Judge Rothstein. The struck portions of this brief to Rothstein are highlighted in yellow. She justified striking my lawyer's statement by falsely accused us of racial bias. Of course, that is a ridiculous lie. The judge needed to strike the truth in order to substitute her contrived fact that Hilchkanum wrote his deed to the Railway and that he had the skills of a lawyer. Judge Rothstein needed to hide the truth that the lawyers for the Railway wrote the Hilchkanum deed, based on a "form deed" which they prepared.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I wrote the following statement in my study of the easement-fee issue (Exhibit 1):

      "The deed signed by the Hilchkanums was prepared by the educated white men that organized the railroad. The Hilchkanums, on the other hand, were Indians unable to even sign their own names on the deed. They both signed with an "X". In his homestead application Bill Hilchkanum certified that he had given up his tribal affiliation in order to qualify. This would indicate the Hilchkanums were not educated nor likely socialized to all of the white man's customs. With this thought in mind, the Hilchkanums were at a great disadvantage in their transaction with SLS&E. Since the deed was drafted by SLS&E, and the Hilchkanums probably had little or no unbiased legal advice, the deeds must be construed most strongly against SLS&E. This would favor the deed's interpretation as an easement. This is supported in the citation from Brown below:

             "The railroad was a sophisticated, well financed, and organized party, undoubtedly represented by counsel. Landowners stood at a disadvantage to railroads in the early 1900s. For these reasons, the deeds, at least the preprinted portions of them, must be construed against the railroad. '[C]ontract language . . . is construed most strongly against the party who drafted it, or whose attorney prepared it.'"
                        Brown v. State, 130 Wn.2d 430, 457, 924 P.2d 908 (1996)"
      [View this portion of my Exhibit 1 to Federal District Court (Judge Rothstein).]

         Of course, Judge Rothstein struck this statement, too. Apparently her reasoning was that I am not allowed to make argument in "her" federal court. She cited no federal law or section of the Constitution to justify her actions. She struck my statement because she is a federal judge who can do whatever she wants, and can count on her dishonest fellow Ninth Circuit judges to protect her from taking responsibility for the destruction of my rights.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Federal District Judge Rothstein manufactured facts about Hilchkanum's ability to participate in his deed.

         While Judge Rothstein construed every word in the Hilchkanum deed against Hilchkanum, she never justified that tactic. Instead, Rothstein simply proclaimed that Hilchkanum was capable of participating in his deed with this statement:
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "Thus it is clear that the parties knew how to limit a grant, and that they chose not to limit the right of way."
           [View this citation in an annotated version of King County v. Rasmussen (2001)]

         The fact that the deed had limiting language does not prove that Hilchkanum knew how to limit a deed. It does not prove that Hilchkanum had any part in that limiting language or in any other part of his deed. This becomes even more dishonest by Judge Rothstein because my lawyer notified Rothstein in his brief that Hilchkanum was illiterate and a Native American. Whether Rothstein was correct in striking my lawyer's statement or not, she was required to consider whether Hilchkanum was capable of participating in his right-of-way deed.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Rothstein didn't stop there. After falsely stating that Hilchkanum "...knew how to limit a grant...", she construed all the words in the Hilchkanum deed against only Hilchkanum. Rothstein justified this by manufacturing ridiculous material facts about Hilchkanum. Here is a citation in which Rothstein manufactured facts to justify her construing the words of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed against only Hilchkanum: (with my emphasis)
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "Furthermore, because the Hilchkanums were homesteaders without a final patent, federal law limited them to certain types of conveyances, such as grants to schools, cemeteries, and rights of way to railways. See 17 U.S. Stat. 602. The Act provides more context for the choice of the term "right of way" in the deed, indicating that the Hilchkanums chose the phrase out of necessity rather than a desire to create an easement."
           [View this citation in an annotated version of King County v. Rasmussen (2001)]

         In the above citation, Judge Rothstein states that Hilchkanum, an illiterate Native American in 1887, understood the complexities of 17 U.S. Stat. 602 and wrote his deed using the term "right of way" in the granting clause only to comply with the words in the federal statute. This is ridiculous. This is the sort of argument that dishonest lawyers make in their briefs with the hope that a judge or a jury will believe their fiction. This is not legal analysis, but rather this is the illegal establishment of a material fact. It is a question of fact that the Hilchkanums chose the term "right of way" as Rothstein claims. Questions of fact are resolved by juries in legitimate courts of law. Judge Rothstein knew she was making up a material fact here, but had no fear of being held responsible for that dishonest act. The Ninth Circuit Courts of the United States of America are completely out of control, with judges, such as Rothstein, freely committing criminal acts from the bench.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Also in the above citation, Rothstein refers to the phrase "right of way" and then states that "...the Hilchkanums chose the phrase...". If the Hilchkanums chose the phrase, then they wrote that phrase in their deed, and are the authors of that phrase. Rothstein didn't have the character or intellectual integrity to state her opinion that the Hilchkanums authored their deed, but she slips unjustified conclusions in her opinion which imply that she has already established authorship of the deed. This becomes even more dishonest because my lawyer specifically refuted that fact in his brief. Whether Rothstein struck my lawyers statement or not, she needed un-refuted facts to justify the statement that "...the Hilchkanums chose the phrase...". What a dishonest human being and disgrace to the federal judiciary!
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         Once District Judge Rothstein dishonestly proclaimed Hilchkanum to be author of his right-of-way deed, the judges who reviewed Rothstein's decision, and the State judges who construed the Hilchkanum deed in Ray v. King County, adopted Rothstein's illegal establishment of Hilchkanum as author of his deed and adopted Rothstein's illegal establishment of Hilchkanum's ability to participate in his deed. It appears that the first priority of judges is to protect their own, even if it requires they violate their oaths and commit crimes from the bench in that process. We-the-people have lost our legal system.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Senior Federal Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher supported Rothstein's dishonest tactics and denied my right to a jury.

         On appeal, Circuit Judge Fletcher and panel supported every dishonest tactic used by Rothstein, and ignored our legitimate briefing. We were "blindsided" by Judge Rothstein's establishment of Hilchkanum as author of his deed and the subsequent construing of all the words of that deed against only Hilchkanum. The King County prosecutor made no such claim of Hilchkanum's authorship in his briefs. This ridiculous conclusion by Rothstein just magically showed up in her opinion and was supported by no document or contributing fact. With her opinion, Rothstein effectively produced a briefing for King County which we were not allowed to counter with our briefs. The counter argument came with this appeal to the three judge Ninth Circuit appeals panel headed by Judge Fletcher.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         District Judge Rothstein dishonestly struck my lawyer's statement of Hilchkanum's difficulty in dealing with legal matters, and then treated Hilchkanum as if her were a skilled lawyer. We tried to correct that misconception in our appeal. In his brief to Judge Fletcher, my lawyer asked the judge to reconsider the striking of this statement in his briefing to Rothstein.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

           "Bill Hilchkanum was an Indian. At the very best he was functionally illiterate, and "made his mark" when he signed legal documents. Thus, all drafting of any ambiguous documents was completed by the railroad’s representative. In this case Bill Hilchkanum and his wife signed a document that did not comport with the necessary elements for conveyance of a fee simple interest, because of the qualifying and limiting language of the document."
        [Read my lawyer's brief opposing King County's Summary Judgment motion and view this statement on page 2. The portions highlighted in yellow were struck by Rothstein.]

         This was an important statement because it describes Hilchkanum's inability to participate in his deed and states that the words of the deed must be construed against the Railway lawyers. It is a disputed material fact that Hilchkanum was capable of participating in his right-of-way deed. Here is a statement from my lawyer's brief to Judge Fletcher in which he describes the difficulty Hilchkanum suffered in dealing with legal matters.

           "Bill Hilchkanum was the original homesteader of the Rasmussens’ lands in this case. ER, 446. On June 15, 1876 David T. Denny and Luke M. Redmond stated under oath that Bill Hilchkanum was an Indian who had abandoned his membership in the Snoqualmie tribe, and “adopted the habits and pursuits of civilized life”. ER, 494. The entire chronology of events explaining the homestead efforts of Bill Hilchkanum are found as exhibits to the expert witness Graddon declaration, at ER 446-522. On March 6, 1884 David T. Denny testified by sworn affidavit that “Bill Hilchkanum is an Indian and unable to read or write the English language***That said Indian Bill Hilchkanum relied on this affiant to take care of his said business…”. ER, 486. On March 24, 1884 Bill Hilchkanum “made his mark” upon an affidavit, which stated he “is an Indian and unable to read or write the English language and hence depends entirely upon the assistance of his white friends to aid him in transacting his business for him. That one D.T. Denny of Seattle W.T. had the care of his homestead papers for him…” ER, 483. David T. Denny was one of the witnesses to the original Hilchkanum deed in this case. ER, 502. On March 25, 1884 George W. Tibbetts swore by affidavit that he was “well acquainted with Bill Hilchkanum…” and that “…Bill Hilchkanum is an Indian and unable to read or write the English language and that he depended upon other parties to manage his business for him so that said Indian did not understand how to proceed in his homestead proof…”. ER, 485. In all documents of record, including the original Hilchkanum deed to SLS&E, Bill Hilchkanum signed his name by “making his mark”, which was an “X”, rather than a written or printed signature. ER, 476-522. The quitclaim deed from Bill Hilchkanum to SLS&E was signed (by his “mark”) and delivered to SLS&E on May 9, 1887. ER, 501-503. Bill Hilchkanum received the United States’ fee patent to his homestead lands on July 24, 1888. ER, 505-507.

           The above uncontroverted material facts describe the grantor whom the district court in this case found as being competent to limit a grant and to distinguish between an easement and a conveyance of fee simple absolute. ER, 592-597. The district court even found that Bill Hilchkanum was aware of 17 U.S. Stat. 602, and chose the phrase “right of way” out of necessity rather than to create an easement, because Bill Hilchkanum knew the then existing federal law allowed the conveyance of a railroad right of way before he had received his fee patent. ER, 595. The Rasmussens contest these factual findings of the district court, with the above evidence that was before the district court."

        [Read my lawyer's brief to Judge Fletcher and panel, "Defendants-Appellants’ John and Nancy Rasmussens’ Opening Appeal Brief", and view the above statement beginning on page 4, (PDF page 10).]

         Not only did my lawyer identify a number of documents presented to the District Court which showed Hilchkanum at a great disadvantage in legal proceedings, but he specifically pointed out to Judge Fletcher that this was a disputed material fact that would invalidate Rothstein's use of summary judgment. The material fact of Hilchkanum's ability to participate in his deed was required to be resolved by a jury. This is spelled out in the rules of summary judgment and is required under the due process rule of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The problem is that federal judges, such as District Judge Rothstein and Senior Circuit Judge Fletcher, don't believe in the U.S. Constitution or the rules of the court. Here is a condensed quote from my lawyer's brief to Judge Fletcher in which he specifically identifies this disputed material fact and suggests the lawsuit be returned to Federal District Court, which would then require jury resolution. (with my emphasis)
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      [Beginning on page 10 (PDF page 16]

      "(8)     Argument:

        (A)      Genuine contested issues of material fact exist that preclude the entry of a summary judgment order and Fed.R.Civ.P.12 order of dismissal in this case.

      [Skipping to the middle of page 11 (PDF page 17]

      In this case, the district court failed to examine the exhibits authenticated by expert witness Graddon, referenced in the Rasmussens’ briefing, (ER, 434-537); otherwise, the trial court would not have made the unfortunate extrapolation from the Rasmussens’ briefing; i.e., that they claimed Bill Hilchkanum was a Native American so therefore he must have been illiterate1. ER, 57. This first-hand evidence of illiteracy (ER, 467-498) is un-refuted, and supports the Rasmussens’ contentions regarding the “circumstances surrounding execution” of the quit-claim deed, and “intent of the parties”, to prove Bill Hilchkanum could not have known (a) what “granting clause limiting language” was, (b) what an easement was, (c) what the legal distinctions were between fee simple absolute title and an easement, and (d) what effect there was to signing a quit-claim deed without an after-acquired title clause when he didn’t have fee simple title at the time of execution and delivery of the quit-claim deed.

      [Skipping to the top of page 13 (PDF page 19]

      In this case Hilchkanum cannot be faulted for “making his mark” on an ambiguous deed to the railroad. Clearly, the railroad representatives prepared this Hilchkanum deed, and it must be construed in a light most favorable to the Hilchkanums. The railroad was granted an easement, if anything at all.

      [Skipping to the top of page 14 (PDF page 20]

      The Rasmussens, as the nonmoving parties, should have had all these facts reasonably considered by the trial court. The trial court’s opinion is silent concerning these contested material facts. All facts and inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 442 (9th CCA, 1995). The summary judgment order, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 dismissal order, should be reversed and remanded."

        [Read my lawyer's brief to Judge Fletcher and panel, "Defendants-Appellants’ John and Nancy Rasmussens’ Opening Appeal Brief", and view the above statement beginning on page 10, (PDF page 16).]

         In spite of this argument by my lawyer, Senior Federal Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher and panel upheld Rothstein's illegal use of summary judgment and supported every dishonest conclusion in Rothstein's opinion.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

Summary:

         This web page has discussed the three factors which establish the Hilchkanum's participation and intentions in their right-of-way deed to the SLS&E, and in their subsequent real estate deeds. They are:

      1: The history of Native Americans (Indians) in the late 1800's;

      2: The federal and Washington State laws enacted to protect Native Americans at that time; and

      3: Specific Hilchkanum documents, presented to the court, which explain their behavior and intentions with their deeds.

         The Hilchkanum's intentions in their deeds is a fact, and not a legal determination that is the right or responsibility of the judge in summary judgment. The intentions of the parties in a deed is the critical material fact that is considered in construing a deed. Disputed material facts must be resolved before a jury. This is required by the law and by the Constitution.

         The Hilchkanums were illiterate Native American Indians who lived through times of radical change for Natives in the 1800's and early 1900's. In the years that the Hilchkanums granted the deeds which were construed in King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and Ray v. King county (2004), Indians were on the bottom rung of white society and at great disadvantage in legal dealings. It was completely dishonest for federal and state judges to find that the Hilchkanums were experts in homesteading law and the construction of real estate deeds. They provided no document or fact which supported this conclusion, and they ignored the history, laws, and specific Hilchkanum documents shown on this page. These judges intentionally refused to allow the Rays and Rasmussens (me) our constitutional right to establish the material facts before a jury. This action by the judges covered up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and identifies them as active participants in that crime.
         (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)