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

What are the "Hilchkanum Opinions" or the "Hilchkanum Decisions"? Who are the "Hilchkanum Judges"?

by John Rasmussen

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



Introduction

         On this website, I refer to the "Hilchkanum opinions", the "Hilchkanum decisions", and the "Hilchkanum judges". This refers to the many opinions, and refusals of appeal, which have construed, and mis-construed, the May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E). This deed represents a typical 1887 right-of-way deed along East Lake Sammamish in King County, Washington. The intentional misconstruing of this deed by federal and Washington State judges has covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The "Hilchkanum opinions" can be seen as three separate sets of legal opinions. In King County v. Rasmussen, I took the issue of whether the Hilchknaum right-of-way deed granted an easement or fee simple title through the Ninth Circuit Federal Court system. The two published opinions are blatant criminal acts from the bench. As a final injustice, I was denied appeal at the United States Supreme Court. My neighbors, Gerald and Kathy Ray, took the same Hilchkanum right-of-way deed issue through Washington State courts in Ray v. King County, and were denied appeal of a very dishonest Division One appeals decision by the Washington State Supreme Court. Then, the Rays and about fourteen other parties took a takings claim to United States Court of Federal Claims. The critical issue at the Court of Federal Claims was whether the Hilchknaum right-of-way deed granted an easement or fee simple title, the exact issue already determined in King County's favor in the Ninth Circuit and State opinions. In Beres v. United States, the profoundly dishonest Rasmussen and Ray opinions were essentially overturned, and a handful of parties along East Lake Sammamish were allowed compensation.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Summary Judgment:

         All of the Rasmussen and Ray opinions were settled by the judges illegally using summary judgment. Summary judgment is allowed only when there is agreement with the material facts. It is not the privilege of judges to resolve material facts in a lawsuit. There is certainly not a right for judges to make up undocumented, ridiculous facts, but they did. It is an integral aspect of the Fifth Amendment Right of Due Process of the U.S. Constitution that resolving questions of fact (the truth) in a court of law is the duty of a jury. Yet, with material facts in great disagreement, the "Hilchkanum judges" in the Rasmussen and Ray opinions allowed summary judgment in every instance. It appears that violation of the rules of summary judgment is an epidemic in our courts. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The non-opinions:

         The "Hilchkanum opinions" are analyzed below. But, the most dishonest "opinions" are the non-opinions by judges in the higher courts of appeal. I am referring to the dishonest denial of appeal by the Ninth Circuit, en banc, and the denial of appeal by the United States Supreme Court in my lawsuit, and the cowardly denial of appeal by the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court (WSSC) in Ray v. King County. As I explain below, the WSSC denied consideration of the Ray's legal issues on three separate occasions. After appeal of Ray v. King County (2004) was denied by the Washington State Supreme Court, I wrote the following public letter to the judges. Of course, no WSSC judge responded to my statements and accusations in that letter. That would take character, honesty, and a commitment to their oaths. Sadly, it appears that these traits are absent in the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

         So, below I identify the "Hilchkanum opinions" (which are the same as the "Hilchkanum decisions"), and the "Hilchkanum judges". Further, I provide links which justify my accusations of criminal acts by some of these judges who intentionally misconstrued the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed and covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

The "Hilchkanum opinions" ("Hilchkanum decisions"):

         As I stated above, the "Hilchkanum opinions", or the "Hilchkanum decisions", consist of King County v. Rasmussen and Ray v. King County, the dishonest published opinions which covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. But, they also include three United States Court of Federal Claims which essentially overturn the Rasmussen and Ray opinions. Also, there were five denials of appeal which ignored very dishonest lower court opinions. So, the May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E) has been misconstrued, denied appeal, and properly construed in a chain of about twelve court filings. A study of these opinions exposed the corruption that exists in our legal system. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         This page presents and discusses the published "Hilchkanum opinions". First, these opinions are listed, then briefly discussed. The brief discussion will link to in-depth analysis.

The Published "Hilchkanum Opinions" Listed:

      Fee Simple Opinions:

      King County v. Rasmussen (2001)

      King County v. Rasmussen (2002)

      Ray v. King County (2004)

      Collateral Estoppel Opinion:

      Beres v. United States (2010)

      Easement Opinions:

      Beres v. United States (2011)

      Beres v. United States (2012)

A Brief Discussion of the Published "Hilchkanum Opinions":

    King County v. Rasmussen (2001), a criminal act from the bench:

         The first "Hilchkanum opinion" was authored by Federal District Judge Barbara Rothstein. My lawyer and I moved my lawsuit to federal court after a very biased hearing in King County Superior Court where the lawsuit was initially filed by King County. I don't know who got to Federal District Judge Rothstein, but her dishonest conclusions suggest that she was illegally consulting with someone, or several people, outside of the judicial process.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The evidence of Rothstein's crime is in the obvious dishonesty of her opinion. An example is her irrational and undocumented statement of authorship of the Hilchkanum deed by illiterate Native American, Bill Hilchkanum. This bizarre material fact wasn't briefed by King County. Instead, it popped up in Rothstein's opinion, too late for my attorney to respond to this critical material fact which was concocted by the judge. Hilchkanum couldn't even sign his name. He signed his right-of-way deed with an "X". Federal and State laws acknowledged the disadvantage Native Americans had in real estate transactions at that time, and protected them. Rothstein ignored those laws. Instead, she named Hilchkanum as author of his deed without any fact or document in support, and after ignoring documents we submitted which contradict her bizarre conclusion of authorship. Of course, there is dishonesty everywhere in her opinion. Another example is Rothstein's refusal to acknowledge the precedential common law opinion which destroys her conclusion that the Hilchkanum deed granted fee simple title. In King County v. Squire (1990), the court found that the Squire deed's granting words to the SLS&E "strongly suggests conveyance of an easement". The Squire deed granting words to the SLS&E are identical to the Hilchkanum deed granting words to the SLS&E. Despite the fact this precedential finding was briefed to Rothstein, she simply ignored its importance in her opinion and refused to discuss its inconsistency with her finding. Further, by default, the Squire court found these granting words to be authored by the Railway. In a real court of law, we would have had the right to show a jury that these identical granting words are found in SLS&E deed, after SLS&E deed, after SLS&E deed. The only possible conclusion a legitimate jury could make is that the Railway wrote the Hilchkanum granting clause and all the other granting clauses which used the identical wording. Further, a legitimate jury would have applied the precedent set in Squire, and found the Hilchkanum granting words to indicate the intention to convey an easement. Instead, Rothstein illegally allowed herself summary judgment and "found" that illiterate Native American Bill Hilchkanum wrote these granting words, intending to grant fee simple title of the underlying land. This, and many other, dishonest conclusions by Rothstein are explained in the annotated versions of her opinion, linked below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

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

         I provide three versions of King County v. Rasmussen (2001). First there is the opinion without my comments. Second, there is the opinion with my brief comments inserted. Third, there is the opinion with expanded comments and documentation. The second version is more readable than the third. Each comment in the second version links to the expanded version's comment so that the reader who needs more explanation or documentation will understand Rothstein's dishonesty and her participation in 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.)

      View King County v. Rasmussen (2001) without my additional comments.

      View King County v. Rasmussen (2001) with my brief comments.

      View King County v. Rasmussen (2001) with my expanded comments and documentation.

      View briefs, exhibits and other documentation associated with King County v. Rasmussen (2001).

    King County v. Rasmussen (2002), a criminal act from the bench:

         We appealed Rothstein's dishonest opinion to a Ninth Circuit three judge panel consisting of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, Ninth Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, and Mary H. Murguia, United States District Court Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Fletcher headed the panel and provided the "Hilchkanum opinion". Her opinion ignored our briefs and simply "rubber stamped" Rothstein's dishonest opinion. I suspect that, as Seattle based federal judges, Rothstein and Fletcher are good friends. Further, I suspect that Fletcher requested the appeal, based on her senior status, in order to protect her friend Rothstein with an opinion which ignored our briefs, the law, the Constitution, and the truth. Fletcher's dishonesty is understood by reading her opinion with my attached comments, provided below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I still had a belief in the integrity of our judicial system when my lawyer and I went to oral arguments in front of the three judge panel. After Fletcher published her dishonest opinion, I finally understood that our judicial system is poisoned from bottom to top. It no longer belongs to the people of the United States, or the people of the State of Washington, but rather has become lost in the power and egos of the judges we trust to administer our laws and Constitution. They no longer deserve our trust. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The hearing was held on June 13, 2002. That day, oral arguments were heard on six separate lawsuits. Ours was the last heard and was scheduled for 20 minutes. The first three were allowed only ten minutes. Looking back, I believe that ours was held last because Fletcher knew about the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and was concerned that the fraud would be discussed at the hearing. By scheduling us last, the courtroom was cleared out of witnesses who were there for the other lawsuits. If there is to be a study made of dishonest legal opinions in Ninth Circuit courts, a good place to start would be by examining the last hearings of the day.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In her "Hilchkanum opinion", Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher ignores the legitimate points we made in our briefs and simply reiterated all of Rothstein's dishonest conclusions. It's as if Rothstein wrote the appeals opinion too. This is explained in the commented versions of Fletcher's opinion, directly below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View King County v. Rasmussen (2002) without my additional comments.

      View King County v. Rasmussen (2002) with my brief comments.

      View King County v. Rasmussen (2002) with my expanded comments and documentation.

      View briefs, exhibits and other documentation associated with King County v. Rasmussen (2002).

    Ray v. King County (2004), a criminal act from the bench:

         At about the same time I was taking my lawsuit through federal court, my neighbors, Jerry and Kathy Ray, were taking the same issues through the Washington State courts. Since we both owned land which was a portion of the original Hilchkanum homestead, the outcome of both of our lawsuits was based on what interest the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed granted to the SLS&E in 1887.

         The Rays lost to King County in Superior Court and appealed to the Washington State Court Of Appeals, Division One. I don't have the Superior Court opinion, but do have the Appeals court opinion, which is linked below. The Appeals opinion was authored by Ronald E. Cox, Chief Judge at the time. Judge Ann Schindler concurred. Judge William W. Baker dissented.

         The Appeals court opinion, Ray v. King County (2004), is a criminal act from the bench. Cox and Schindler copied all the significant dishonest tactics used by the federal judges in my lawsuit, King County v. Rasmussen. The repeat of the same dishonest tactics in all of the "Hilchkanum decisions" suggests racketeering or collusion. We have lost our legal system to judges who do not believe in the rights of the citizens they pretend to serve. The dissenting opinion by Judge Baker is weak and suggests that Baker opted out of participating in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme, but refused to strongly stand up for the rights of the people, and refused to condemn the criminal actions of his fellow judges.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I do not have the briefs to the Court of Appeals, but I do have the Ray's briefs to King County Superior court. I assume the briefs to the Court of Appeals contained the same arguments. Use to following link to view these briefs.

      View the Ray's briefs to King County Superior Court in Ray v. King County (2001).

         The dishonesty of the majority opinion is explained in the annotated versions of Ray v. King County (2004), linked below. There is also an annotated version of Baker's dissenting opinion, which shows his weak protest. The first link below takes the reader to a study of the common dishonest tactics which all the "Hilchkanum judges" used to cover up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and protect the active participants in the crime.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand the "House of Cards", the common dishonest tactics used by the Hilchkanum judges.

      View Ray v. King County (2004) without my additional comments.

      View Ray v. King County (2004) with my brief comments.

      View Ray v. King County (2004) with my expanded comments and documentation.

      View Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting) without my additional comments.

      View Ray v. King County (2004) (Dissenting) with my comments and documentation.

The "Hilchkanum non-opinions":

         The "Hilchkanum opinions", discussed above, were denied appeal to higher courts in the Federal Ninth Circuit and Washington State. I am referring to the denial of appeal by the Ninth Circuit, en banc, and the denial of appeal by the United States Supreme Court in my lawsuit, King County v. Rasmussen, and the denial of appeal by the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court in my neighbor's lawsuit, Ray v. King County. I believe that the most dishonest "opinions" coming from our courts are the non-opinions related to denial of appeal. When there is legitimate reason for appeal, the appeals courts have no right to deny acceptance of the lawsuit. An exception may be the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
        (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 does not have the resources to accept every worth appeal. But, I believe that SCOTUS is still liable for the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme because of the high number of appeals from the Ninth Circuit which are reversed without SCOTUS identifying the Ninth Circuit as a rogue federal court. What have the judges of the United States Supreme Court done to correct the persistent dishonesty of Ninth Circuit judges? Instead of attacking the problem at its root by censoring Ninth Circuit judges who have violated their oaths and issued blatantly dishonest opinions, SCOTUS takes a handful of Ninth Circuit appeals each year, and sends the remaining worthy appellants to judicial limbo.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         We-the-People must demand the reestablishment of a legitimate federal judicial system in our Country. This needs to start at the top with the judges of the United States Supreme Court publicly chastising rogue judges of the of the lower circuit courts, and encouraging Congress to impeach judges who have violated their oaths, the Constitution, and the law. The United States Supreme Court must wake up to the fact that the judges of the lower federal courts are out of control.
        (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 (WSSC) actively participated in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. It had the responsibility to review and correct Ray v. King County (2004). Instead, the WSSC denied appeal of Ray v. King County at least three times. According to records, John Groen, the Ray's attorney, appealed directly to the WSSC after losing to King County in Superior Court. The Supreme Court declined his request and the lawsuit proceeded through the Court of Appeals, Division One. The Ray's second appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court was from the very dishonest decision by Judges Ronald E. Cox and Ann Schindler at the Washington State Court Of Appeals, Division One. That opinion, Ray v. King County (2004), is discussed above. After the WSSC refused the second appeal, the Rays went to the United States Court of Federal Claims. Federal Judge Marian Horn requested certification of the issues to the Washington State Supreme Court in the claim by the Rays, and was refused again, for the third time, by the WSSC. Here is the statement by the Washington State Supreme Court in it's refusal to the United States Court of Federal Claims.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "The court is of the view that, in light of existing precedent such as Brown v. State, 130 Wn.2d 430, 924 P.2d 908 (1996) and Ray v. King County, 120 Wn. App. 564, 86 P.3d 183, review denied, 152 Wn.2d 1027 (2004), the questions posed by the federal court are not 'question[s] of state law ... which [have] not been clearly determined.'"
      [Beres v. United States (2010)] (Citation on Pages 10 and 19)

         It is essentially impossible for the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court to misunderstand the dishonesty of Ray v. King County (2004). In Ray, the King County Prosecutor misrepresented the findings in Brown v. State of Washington (1996). In Brown, the WSSC looked at deeds which were written in statutory warranty deed form. The statutory warranty deed form is designed to convey land. The use of that deed form in a railroad deed implies the conveyance of fee simple title of the underlying land unless there is a statement that the deed is for the purpose of a right-of way. If the deed states it is for the purpose of a railroad right-of-way, the deed is assumed to convey an easement. A study of precedential Washington State railroad right-of-way opinions provides an understanding. I've characterized two basic rules used to construe these right-of-way deeds: the "Railroad Land Granting Rule" and the "Railroad Right-of-Way Granting Rule". These "rules" are explained in the links directly below. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand the "Railroad Land Granting Rule".

      Understand the "Railroad Right-of-Way Granting Rule"

      Understand the Basic Rules to Construe a Deed.

         After accepting a phony tax donation of the land under the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way the King County Prosecutor misused the rules to construe railroad deeds in statutory warranty deed form in order to construe the SLS&E deeds along East Lake Sammamish. The ELS right-of-way deeds were not in statutory warranty deed form and should not have been construed using those rules, as explained in the links above. The judges of the Washington State Supreme Court know Maleng was using this dishonest argument. Further, the issue of easement-or-fee in about fourteen SLS&E deeds had previously been considered in Washington Courts, and all were determined to easements. The Washington State Supreme Court had a responsibility to correct the dishonesty of its lower court. Instead, the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court became participants in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme with their three denials of appeal.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View my March 31, 2009 public letter to the Judges of the WSSC accusing them of criminal acts.

      Understand that, prior to the ELS tax fraud scheme, all previous SLS&E deeds were determined to be easements.

The United States Court of Federal Claims:

         The crimes committed by the "Hilchkanum judges" were taken to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Rays, and several of their neighbors, filed against the federal government for a taking under the Rails-to-Trails Act. I don't know if this filing was before of after the Washington State Supreme Court refused appeal of Ray v. King County (2004). Perhaps these lawsuits were filed concurrently. Since the highest court of Washington State let stand the criminal act from the bench by Washington Appeals Judges Cox and Schindler in Ray v. King County (2004), Federal Judge Horn requested certification of several questions by the Washington State Supreme Court. The judges of the Washington State Supreme Court replied with the following statement: (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "The court is of the view that, in light of existing precedent such as Brown v. State, 130 Wn.2d 430, 924 P.2d 908 (1996) and Ray v. King County, 120 Wn. App. 564, 86 P.3d 183, review denied, 152 Wn.2d 1027 (2004), the questions posed by the federal court are not 'question[s] of state law ... which [have] not been clearly determined.'"
      [Beres v. United States (2010)] (Citation on Pages 10 and 19)

         The judges of the Washington State Supreme Court were informed that the "Hilchkanum opinions" were a cover-up of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. They knew that the facts and the law were subverted in those opinions. Yet, when offered the opportunity by Federal Judge Horn, they still refused to do their duty to correct the criminal actions of the lower court judges. I spelled out the facts of the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme in a letter to the judges of the Washington State Supreme Court in March 2009. The judges of the WSSC have no excuse to ignore these criminal acts by their fellow judges. (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      View my March 31, 2009 public letter to the Judges of the WSSC describing the ELS tax fraud scheme.

         Judge Horn raised questions as to the "merits" of Ray v. King County (2004) and requested the Washington State Supreme Court to certify several important legal questions. The judges of the Washington State Supreme Court cowardly refuse to reply. Judge Horn then ruled against Jerry and Kathy Ray based on the collateral estoppel. Where is any common sense? If the Washington State Count could not explain the "merits" of Division One's opinion and the Supreme Count's refusal to accept appeal, then Judge Horn was required to adjudicate the Ray's issues based on the "merits". "Merits" were lacking in every significant portion of Ray v. King County (2004). The test for application of collateral estoppel is stated in Judge Horn's opinion: (with my emphasis) (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      "(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the one presented in the current action, (2) the prior adjudication must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits, (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication, and (4) precluding relitigation of the issue will not work an injustice on the party against whom collateral estoppel is to be applied."
      [Beres v. United States (2010)] (Citation on Page 21)

    Washington State Appeals Judge Cox ignored binding precedent.

         In Beres v. United States (2010), Judge Horn agreed that Ray v. King County was settled on its "merits" when she applied collateral estoppel. It's impossible for a competent judge to review the absurdity of Ray v. King County (2004) and conclude it was settled on it's "merits". In Ray v. King County (2004), Judges Cox and Schindler ignored the binding precedent found in King County v. Squire (1990) which held the identical granting words in the Squire deed conveyed an easement. This issue was discussed above. Instead of adopting the conclusion of the Squire court that the Squire granting clause "strongly suggests conveyance of an easement", the Ray judges lied and stated that the Squire granting clause needed the reverter statement found in the habendum in order to be found an easement. No person with average intelligence can read the Squire opinion and come to that understanding. Judge Ronald Cox intentionally lied when he misrepresented the Squire court's conclusion that the Squire granting clause conveyed an easement. Refusing to accept binding precedent destroys a basic concept of common law, which is the basis for property rights in Washington State. There was no "merit" in that intentional criminal act by the Ray judges. There is identifiable dishonesty in almost every paragraph of Ray v. King County (2004). (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Is a copy machine the author of all the documents it copies?

        Another example of lack of "merit" is the opinion of the Ray judges that B.J. Tallman was the author of the Hilchkanum deed. Tallman was the notary public who merely copied the deed into the King County Book of Deeds. Finding B.J. Tallman to be author of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed is the equivalent of finding every document reproduced in a copy machine is actually authored by that that copy machine. Tallman only copied the deed, he did not compose it. This conclusion, or implication, by the Ray judges that notary public B.J. Tallman authored the Hilchkanum deed becomes even more ridiculous when one understands that other SLS&E deeds, with identical wording, were copied by other individuals into the Book of Record in their different handwriting. For comparison, below are links to photocopies of the Hilchkanum deed, the Lurber deed, and the Perry deed. These three right-of-way deeds to the SLS&E are identical in granting language, secondary grant, and habendum, yet are in the handwriting of three different individuals, two notaries public and a Justice of the Peace. Also, below I've included the Squire deed which used Edwin Briscoe and Jos. Gregory as notaries, and was apparently filed in Jos. Gregory's handwriting. As discussed above, the Squire deed is materially identical to the Hilchkanum, Lurber, and Perry deeds, if the changes made by Governor Squire are removed. If Tallman is author of the Hilchkanum deed because it is filed in Tallman's handwriting, then how did the identical language get authored by the other individuals who filed SLS&E deeds in their different and unique handwriting? Ridiculous! Also, note that each deed shown below is filed at the request of Burke and Haller who were the lawyers for the SLS&E. That statement is the common factor in the four deeds, and suggests that Burke and Haller were responsible for the "form deed" used for Hilchkanum, Lurber, and Perry deeds, and for the words of the Squire deed which were not changed or added by Governor Squire.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E - filed by B.J. Tallman, notary public.

      Lurber right-of-way deed to the SLS&E - filed by Edwin Briscoe, notary public.

      Perry right-of-way deed to the SLS&E - filed by Jo J. Beard, Justice of the Peace.

      Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E - filed by Jos. Gregory, notary public.

         How completely ridiculous does a decision have to be before it is found to lack "merit"? The question of who authored the Hilchkanum deed is an "issue of fact" which is required to be resolved by a jury in legitimate courts of law. Authorship is important because a deed is construed against its author. Why was this fact, and other issues of fact, resolved by the judges in the Hilchkanum opinions? Why did Judge Horn turn her back on the rights of the Rays and accept the blatantly dishonest opinion, Ray v. King County (2004), as being decided on its "merits"?
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand that the SLS&E "form deed" is the basis of the Hilchkanum, Lurber, Perry, and Squire deeds.

    United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Marian Horn "reversed" the earlier "Hilchkanum opinions".

         After U. S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Horn allowed about fourteen parties, making takings claims based on the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed in Beres v. United States (2010) to proceed, she followed in 2011 and 2012 finding the 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed granted only an easement, and that these parties were due compensation. These two opinions are linked directly below.

      Beres v. United States (2011)

      Beres v. United States (2012)

    Does King County Recognize Judge Horn's Opinions, and Acknowledge the County's Previous False Claim?

         I suspect that King County is ignoring Judge Horn's decisions holding the 1887 Hilchkanum deed to convey an easement. Further, I assume this is true of the other ELS SLS&E right-of-way deeds which Judge Horn also found to be easements. For King County to admit the ELS deeds granted easements, would expose the County to accusations of participation in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. For the residents of East Lake Sammamish, who Horn found to own the land under the ELS right-of-way, their claims of ownership will be ignored. They will be assessed fees and jerked around by the County forever. Welcome to King County, Washington!
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

Why?

         Why were the Rasmussen and Ray opinions decided in violation of the rules of summary judgment? Why did the judges actually make up material facts? Why were the Rays and I denied the right to establish and resolve facts before a jury? Why did all of these judges refuse to acknowledge the precedent set in King County v. Squire (1990), where the identical granting clause was found to "strongly suggest[] conveyance of an easement"? Why did the Washington State Supreme Court agree that the Hilchkanum deed was written by the notary public who only copied the deed into the King County Book of Deeds? Why did the judges ignore the obvious fact that the SLS&E Railway lawyers wrote a form deed which was the basis of the Hilchkanum deed and the other right-of-way deeds forming the East Lake Sammamish right-of-way?
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The answer to those questions is found in the effect of those dishonest actions by the "Hilchkanum judges". Folks do things for a reason. The effect of their dishonesty was to cover-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme and to protect the participants in the crime from going to prison. The Rasmussen and Ray judges became participants in the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme with their criminal actions from the bench.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)














































Reference:

    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 very dishonest Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One opinion, Ray v. King County (2004), because it echoes the very dishonest decisions in King County v. Rasmussen. Both sets of opinions dishonestly 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 very dishonest 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