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

A comparison of the Hilchkanum and Squire Right-of-Way Deeds
to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway.

by John Rasmussen

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



Introduction:

         In order to construe the meaning and effect of the May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (SLS&E), federal and state judges were required to apply Washington State common law. In the case of the Hilchkanum deed a very similar SLS&E deed had been previously construed in Washington State courts. That decision established a legal precedent which was required to be applied, or at least considered, by the judges who construed the Hilchkanum deed. The previously construed deed was the March 29, 1887 Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E and the decision was King County v. Squire (1990). In violation of the Constitution and the law, not one federal or state judge addressed the inconsistency of the Hilchkanum opinions with the precedent set in King County v. Squire. This includes the "judges" of our very corrupt Washington State Supreme Court. The judge's refusal to acknowledge established legal precedent covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. On this page, the Squire and Hilchkanum deeds will be compared, then the inconsistency of the opinions which construed these two deeds will be discussed.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

The Hilchkanum and Squire Right-of-Way Deeds Compared:

         The Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E was published in King County v. Squire (1990). A citation from that opinion, which contains the portion of the Squire right-of-way deed material to the court's opinion, is provided directly below. Below the citation, a link is provided to a photocopy and transcription of the complete Squire deed. Material portions of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E were published in King County v. Rasmussen (2001) and are cited below. Below that citation, a link is provided to a photocopy and transcription of the complete Hilchkanum deed.

    The Squire Right-of-Way Deed as published in King County v. Squire (1990):

         In this citation from King County v. Squire (1990), the Court showed the handwritten changes made by the grantor, Watson Squire, in bold font. For greater emphasis, I present them here in bold red font. By default, it must be assumed that the remainder of the words, shown in blue font, were written by the SLS&E Railway lawyers because the SLS&E was the only other party to the deed. If one removes the changes made to his deed by Watson Squire, the Squire and Hilchkanum granting and habendum language is identical. This common wording is found in the "SLS&E form deed" which was written by the lawyers for the Railway and presented to the settlers along the proposed right-of-way. (Historical Note: Watson Squire was Governor of Washington Territory at the time of the formation of the Railway. He served as one of Washington State's first United States Senators. He was a lawyer.)

         It should be noted here that the Squire court did not publish the secondary grant in its opinion, an indication that the secondary grant was not material to the issue of easement-or-fee for the Squire court. On the other had, the Hilchkanum judges found critical significance in their construing of the secondary grant. This inconsistency is discussed later on this page.

        "In Consideration of the benefits and advantages to accrue to us from the location, construction and operation of the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, in the County of King, in Washington Territory, we do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway a right-of-way Fifty (50) feet in width through said lands in said County, described as follows, to-wit: [legal description]

        Such right-of-way strip to be twenty-five (25) feet in width on each side of the center line of the railway track as located across the said lands by the Engineer of said Railway Company, which location is described as follows, to-wit [description.]

        ....

        To Have and to Hold the said premises, with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, and to its successors and assigns forever or so long as said land is used as a right-of-way by said railway Company, Expressly reserving to said grantors their heirs and assigns all their riparian rights and water front rights on the shores of Lake Washington. And this grant is upon the condition that said railway shall be completed over said lands on or before January 1st, 1888."
            [King County v. Squire (1990)]

      View a photocopy and transcription of the complete March 29, 1887 Squire right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.

    The Hilchkanum Right-of-Way Deed as published in King County v. Rasmussen (2001):

        "In Consideration of the benefits and advantages to accrue to us from the location construction and operation of the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, in the County of King, in Washington Territory, we do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a right-of-way one hundred (100) feet in width through our land in said County described as follows to wit

        Lots one (1) two (2) and three (3) in section six (6) township 24 North of Range six (6) East.

        Such right of way strip to be fifty (50) feet in width on each side of the center line of the railway track as located across our said lands by the Engineer of said railway Company which location is described as follows to wit (legal description)

        And the said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company shall have the right to go upon the land adjacent to said line for a distance of two hundred (200) feet on each side thereof and cut down all trees dangerous to the operation of said road.

        To have and to hold the said premises with the appurtenances unto the said party of the second part and to its successors and assigns forever."
            [King County v. Rasmussen (2001)]

      View a photocopy and transcription of the complete May 9, 1887 Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.

    Comparing the Hilchkanum and Squire Granting and Habendum Clauses:

         In construing a deed, the courts are required to consider every word and phrase, in addition to considering the deed as a whole, in order to determine the intentions of the parties. What is granted in the deed is normally described in the granting clause and/or the habendum. These two parts of the Hilchkanum and Squire deeds are shown and compared in this section.

         The Granting Clauses:

         The granting clauses of the Hilchkanum and Squire right-of-way deeds are identical, with the exception of the width of the right-of-way. The words used to grant the right-of-way are perfectly identical. Here, again, are the Squire and Hilchkanum granting clauses with the granting words emphasized:

        Squire Granting Clause:

        "In Consideration of the benefits and advantages to accrue to us from the location, construction and operation of the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, in the County of King, in Washington Territory, we do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway a right-of-way Fifty (50) feet in width through said lands in said County, described as follows, to-wit:"
           [Transcription and photocopy of the Squire right-of-way deed]

        Hilchkanum Granting Clause:

        "In Consideration of the benefits and advantages to accrue to us from the location construction and operation of the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, in the County of King, in Washington Territory, we do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a right-of-way one hundred (100) feet in width through our land in said County described as follows to wit"
            [Transcription and photocopy of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed]t.

         Since the granting words in the Hilchkanum and Squire deeds are identical, and by default the Squire court identified the Railway as author of those granting words, the Hilchkanum judges should have found that the granting clause of the Hilchkanum deed was written by the Railway lawyers, not by Hilchkanum. More important, since the Squire court found these granting words "strongly" indicated the intention to convey an easement, the Hilchkanum judges should have found the identical granting words in the Hilchkanum deed also conveyed an easement, or explained why they refused to accept this precedent set by the Squire court..
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         I've obtained a number of SLS&E right-of-way deeds which were written at the time of the Hilchkanum and Squire deeds, and most of them used these identical words to grant their rights-of-way. This shows that an "ELS form deed", prepared by the Railway, was used for these right-of-way deeds. The following is the SLS&E "ELS form deed" granting clause which was used for the Hilchkanum, Squire and other deeds. To verify its use, a number of deeds are presented which used that same "ELS form deed" granting clause, including the Hilchkanum and Squire deeds.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      SLS&E "ELS form deed" Granting Clause:

      "In consideration of the benefits and advantages to accrue to ("me" or "us") from the location construction and operation of the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway in the County of King in Washington Territory ("I" or "we") do hereby donate grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company a right of way ("one hundred (100)" or "fifty (50)") feet in width through ("my", "our" or "said") lands in said County described as follows to wit."
          ["ELS form deed"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        View a study of the SLS&E "ELS form deed" which was used at the time of the Hilchkanum deed.

         The Rasmussen and Ray judges dishonestly established Hilchkanum as author of all the words in his right-of-way deed. They were unwilling to explain the common language in the Squire and Hilchkanum granting clauses and the conclusion of the Squire court that the granting clause "...strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...". So, they ignored a comparison of the two deeds. In legitimate courts of law, where there is a commitment to the Constitution and the laws, the issue of authorship and a comparison of these two granting clauses would have been resolved by a jury. No rational jury would come to the illegal conclusions of fact made by the Hilchkanum judges. Their dishonesty will be discussed in greater detail below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The Habendum:

         The Hilchkanum and Squire habendum clauses start out with identical words. The Hilchkanum habendum stops with the words used in the "ELS form deed". The Squire habendum continues with words added by Governor Squire. His additional words reiterate the requirement for the right-of-way to revert on abandonment, and require the railway to be completed by January 1, 1888. Here are the Squire and Hilchkanum habendum clauses with the Railway "ELS form deed" words in blue font and the addition by Governor Squire in BOLD Red Font:

        Squire Habendum:

        "To Have and to Hold the said premises, with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, and to its successors and assigns forever or so long as said land is used as a right-of-way by said railway Company, Expressly reserving to said grantors their heirs and assigns all their riparian rights and water front rights on the shores of Lake Washington. And this grant is upon the condition that said railway shall be completed over said lands on or before January 1st, 1888."
           [Transcription and photocopy of the Squire right-of-way deed]

        Hilchkanum Habendum:

        "To have and to hold the said premises with the appurtenances unto the said party of the second part and to its successors and assigns forever."
            [Transcription and photocopy of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed]

         As I stated above, Hilchkanum and Squire habendum clauses were based on the Railway's "ELS form deed". The SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum is determined from the common language found in a number of SLS&E deeds which were executed near the time of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. Here is the SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum followed by links to deeds containing the identical language. Like the Squire deed, several of these deeds contain the SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum, and then add additional requirements.

      SLS&E "ELS form deed" Habendum:

      "To have and to hold the said premises with the appurtenances unto the said party of the second part and to its successors and assigns forever"
          ["ELS form deed"]

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

      View the Squire habendum to understand that it uses the identical SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum,
      and adds reverter clauses and reserves the riparian and waterfront rights.

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

      View the Yonderpump habendum to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum.

      View the Tahalthkut habendum to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum.

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

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

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

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

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

      View the Perry habendum to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum.

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

      View the Lee habendum to understand that it uses the identical SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum,
      and adds the requirement for fences, crossings, and cattle guards.

      View the Pearson habendum to understand that it uses the identical SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum,
      and adds the requirement for fences, a cattle crossing, and a wagon crossing.

      View the Bargquist habendum to understand that it uses the identical SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum,
      and adds the requirement for up to three crossings.

      View the Peterson habendum to understand that it uses the identical SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum,
      and adds the requirement for fences, and a crossing.

      View the Stone habendum to understand that it uses the identical SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum,
      and adds the requirement for the Railway to construct a viaduct for cattle to have access to Lake Union

      View the McGraw habendum to understand that it uses the identical SLS&E "ELS form deed" habendum,
      and adds a reverter clause requiring the railroad be built by January 1, 1888.

        View a study of the SLS&E "ELS form deed" which was used at the time of the Hilchkanum deed.

         The Rasmussen and Ray judges dishonestly established Hilchkanum as author of all the words in his right-of-way deed. They were unwilling to explain the common language in the Squire and Hilchkanum habendum clauses and the conclusions of the Squire court. Instead of understanding the Squire habendum in the context of the language in the Squire granting clause, the Rasmussen and Ray judges dishonestly concentrated only on the language added by Governor Squire to his habendum and ignored the conclusion of the Squire court that the granting clause "...strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...". They refused to honestly compare the two deeds. In legitimate courts of law, where there is a commitment to the Constitution and the laws, the issue of authorship would have been resolved by a jury. No rational jury would come to the illegal conclusions of fact made by the Hilchkanum judges. Their dishonesty will be discussed in greater detail below.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    Comparing the Hilchkanum and Squire Secondary Grants:

         The Hilchkanum judges could find no limiting or restricting language in the granting clause of the Hilchkanum deed to the SLS&E. They did this in spite of the fact that a "right of way" is granted to the SLS&E in the granting clause of the Hilchkanum deed. For more than one hundred years the grant of a "right-of-way" to a railroad has been found to limit the grant to an easement in Washington State. This precedent was correctly applied to the granting clause of the Squire deed by the Squire court, but the Hilchkanum judges refused to acknowledge and apply that precedent to the identical language in the Hilchkanum deed. As "proof" that there was no limiting or restricting language in the Hilchkanum right-of-way granting clause, the Hilchkanum judges concentrated on the secondary grant and claimed it contained limiting language, while the granting clause did not. So, we look at SLS&E secondary grants in this section.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         The Squire deed contained the "ELS form deed" secondary grant, but the Squire court did not find the secondary grant to be material to the issue of easement-or-fee because it is not mentioned in King County v. Squire (1990). Here are the secondary grants from the Squire and Hilchkanum deeds, followed by the "ELS form deed" secondary grant and a number of SLS&E deeds which included that identical secondary grant. The Hilchkanum secondary grant is identical to the secondary grant in the "ELS form deed". The Squire secondary grant is identical, but adds a condition that the downed trees belong to the Squires. This added condition was obviously added by Governor Squire.

      Squire Secondary Grant:

      "And the said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company shall have the right to go upon the land adjacent to said line for a distance of two hundred (200) feet on each side thereof and cut down all trees dangerous to the operation of said road. Provided that all trees when cut down shall belong to said first party, the donors, W.C. Squire & wife."
         [Transcription and photocopy of the Squire right-of-way deed]

      Hilchkanum Secondary Grant:

      "And the said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company shall have the right to go upon the land adjacent to said line for a distance of two hundred (200) feet on each side thereof and cut down all trees dangerous to the operation of said road" "
          [Transcription and photocopy of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed]t.

      SLS&E "ELS form deed" Secondary Grant:

      "And the said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company shall have the right to go upon the land adjacent to said line for a distance of two hundred (200) feet on each side thereof and cut down all trees dangerous to the operation of said road"
          ["ELS form deed"]

      View the Squire secondary grant to understand that it uses the identical SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant,
      and adds a condition that the downed trees belong to the Squires.

      View the Hilchkanum secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Lee secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Lurber secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the McGraw secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Stone secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Yonderpump secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" granting clause.

      View the Tahalthkut secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" granting clause.

      View the Lewellyn secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Burnett secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Pearson secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Davis secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Anderson secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Sbedzuse secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Bargquist secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Peterson secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Perry secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" secondary grant.

      View the Palmberg secondary grant to confirm that it is identical to the SLS&E "ELS form deed" granting clause.

The Dishonesty of the Hilchkanum Opinions:

         The three Hilchkanum opinions which are discussed in detail on this website are simply criminal acts from the bench. These opinions are: King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and Ray v. King County (2004). These three opinions cover-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme. While there is dishonesty in essentially every paragraph of these opinions, on this page I concentrate only on the refusal of these dishonest judges to acknowledge the legal precedent set in King County v. Squire (1990).
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    It's legal precedent that the Hilchkanum granting clause conveyed an easement.

         As I show above, the Hilchkanum and Squire granting clauses have identical language to each other and to many other SLS&E deeds obtained by the Railway in that period. The Squire court spent little of its discussion on the fact that the Squire granting clause conveys an easement because the court was more concerned with the handwritten changes Governor Squire made to the Railway's "ELS form deed". Here is a citation, condensed to emphasize the Squire court's finding that the Squire granting clause conveys an easement.

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

      In Veach v. Culp,/5 the court construed a deed which granted a right of way and used the standard habendum clause language, but without the additional language conditioning use of the property on its continued use as a railroad right of way. The successor railroad argued that the absence of such limiting language showed a fee was conveyed. The Veach court disagreed, holding that the language of the deed which described the conveyance of a right of way indicated an easement had been conveyed. The instant case is much more compelling since Squire specifically included language in the habendum clause reiterating the limitation of the conveyance to use as a right of way. We hold that an easement was conveyed."
          [King County v. Squire (1990)]

         As I wrote above, the Squire court was most concerned with the changes made to the deed by Governor Squire. It concluded that the changes made by Governor Squire to his habendum reiterated the language of the granting clause which limited the deed to an easement. All of the Hilchkanum judges refused to acknowledge this precedent in spite of the fact that it was briefed to them. This is common law precedent in Washington State and was binding precedent on Division I appeals judges Ronald Cox and Ann Schindler in their opinion, Ray v. King County (2004). Cox and Schindler dishonestly refused to accept this binding precedent. Instead of honestly addressing the precedent set in Squire that "...the granting clause strongly suggests conveyance of an easement...", the only analysis from Squire that the Hilchkanum judges acknowledged was the finding by the Squire court that the addition made by Governor Squire to his habendum limited the deed to an easement. The dishonest Hilchkanum judges then found that, since the Hillchkanum deed lacked the same limiting language added to its habendum, the Hilchkanum deed granted fee simple. This is an intentional misstatement of the Squire courts conclusions which can be confirmed by rereading the above condensed citation and verifying that condensed citation in the attached link to the complete Squire opinion. The truth is that the Squire court found the words in the Squire granting clause "strongly suggests conveyance of an easement" and that the additional language added by Governor Squire to his habenmun " reiterat[ed] the limitation of the conveyance to use as a right of way". The truth is my friend and an enemy to the dishonest Hilchkanum judges who covered-up the East Lake Sammamish federal tax fraud scheme with their dishonest opinions.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

    The words of a deed are construed against its author.

         I wrote above that the Squire court was most concerned with the changes made to the deed by Governor Squire. This concern was well placed because the words of a deed are construed against its author. This becomes more important when one party makes handwritten changes to a deed which was composed by the other party. This was the case with the Squire deed. If the changes made by Governor Squire are removed, the Squire and Hilchkanum deeds are identical to each other and to many other SLS&E deeds from the same period. This is shown in my above analysis of the Squire and Hilchkanum granting clauses, habendum, and secondary grants. Authorship in an important material fact to consider in the construing of a deed.

      "Initially, it should be noted that contract language subject to interpretation is construed most strongly against the party who drafted it, or whose attorney prepared it. Underwood v. Sterner, supra: Wise v. Farden, 53 Wn.2d 162, 332 P.2d 454 (1958): Restatement, Contracts SS 236 (d) (1932)."
        [Stickney v. Underwood (1966) - Citation is highlighted on page 3.]

    By default, the Squire court found the words of the deed, which were not added or changed by Governor Squire, were authored by the SLS&E lawyers.

         The changes made to the Railway's "ELS form deed" by Watson Squire were published in bold font in King County v. Squire (1990). That portion of the deed was shown and discussed above. Here again is the citation which provides the material portions of the Squire Right-of-Way Deed. (It's important to understand that the bold emphasis in this citation is the court's.)

      "On March 29, 1887, Watson and Ida Squire executed a deed granting a half-mile right of way to the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway Company. The material portion of the deed reads as follows with the handwritten additions by Mr. Squire set forth in boldface type:

        In Consideration of the benefits and advantages to accrue to us from the location, construction and operation of the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, in the County of King, in Washington Territory, we do hereby donate, grant and convey unto said Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway a right-of-way Fifty (50) feet in width through said lands in said County, described as follows, to-wit: [legal description]. Such right-of-way strip to be twenty-five (25) feet in width on each side of the center line of the railway track as located across the said lands by the Engineer of said Railway Company, which location is described as follows, to-wit [description.] . . . .

        To Have and to Hold the said premises, with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, and to its successors and assigns forever or so long as said land is used as a right-of-way by said railway Company, Expressly reserving to said grantors their heirs and assigns all their riparian rights and water front rights on the shores of Lake Washington. And this grant is upon the condition that said railway shall be completed over said lands on or before January 1st, 1888...."

          [King County v. Squire (1990)]

         Since the Squire court identified the changes and additions that were made by Governor Squire, the only possible author of the remaining words would be the SLS&E Railway. The SLS&E and Squires were the only two parties to the deed. Apparently the Squire court did not discuss the issue of who wrote the remaining words because there was no disagreement on this fact between the King County Prosecutor and the Squire Investment Company. But, this fact became important in the Hilchkanum opinions because the dishonest Hilchkanum judges construed the words of the Hilchkanum deed against the Hilchkanum as the author of his deed. That tortured conclusion by the Hilchkanum judges was made without any supporting documentation, was made in violation of the rules of the rules of summary judgment, and was made by mischaracterizing Native Americans in the late 1800's to be crafty lawyers. The Hilchkanums were illiterate Duwamish Indians living in a time that white society diminished the value and worth of Native Americans.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Understand Hilchkanum's intentions and ability to participate in his right-of-way deed.

         The fact that the SLS&E lawyers provided the Railway's "ELS form deed" to Governor Squire, who then made modifications, can be confirmed by looking at other SLS&E right-of-way deeds from that period and location. To obtain these deeds, I asked my son to go down to the King County Records Office and obtain copies of SLS&E right-of-way deeds which were recorded near the time of the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed in May 1887. Since the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed is recorded in the King County Book of Deeds, Volume 42, Page 250, my son copied all the SLS&E right-of-way deeds he could find in the first 500 pages of Volume 42. There were nineteen SLS&E right-of-way deeds in those 500 pages, which were executed between February 4, 1887 and May 27, 1887. After studying and plotting the location of those nineteen deeds, I went to the King County Archives two other times to obtain several more ELS deeds in order to build a better picture of the "ELS form deed" ("East Lake Sammamish form deed"). Therefore, the link below provides twenty-eight deeds consisting of the nineteen SLS&E deeds my son found in the Volume 42 of the King County Book of Deeds, the Squire deed to the SLS&E which was construed in King County v. Squire (1990), the Burke deed to the SLS&E which was construed in Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber (1910) and is displayed in Northlake Marine Works v. Seattle (1993), and the Bargquist (Barquist) and Puget Mill deeds which were provided in the Affidavit of Richard Welsh to King County Superior Court, July 8, 1985 as an exhibit to the Washington State Supreme Court in Lawson v. State (1986). A photocopy of the Bargquist deed from the King County archives is also provided. Also, this discussion includes the SLS&E ELS right-of-way deeds which are discussed in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims opinion Beres v. United States (2010). The unsigned Cooper deed to the SLS&E and the Reeves deed to the Northern Pacific are also shown.

         While this is not an examination of all the SLS&E right-of-way deeds, after viewing these deeds I believe the reader will understand that this is an adequate number to establish several SLS&E "form deeds", principally the "ELS form deed" which was used for the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed to the SLS&E.

      View the twenty-eight deeds used to establish the SLS&E "form deeds"

      Understand the SLS&E "form deed" used to obtain the right-of-way deeds along East Lake Sammamish.

    The judges who construed the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed intentionally misrepresented the findings in King County v. Squire (1990).

         Considering the fact that the Rasmussen and Ray judges were carefully briefed on the effect of the Squire opinion, it must be understood that these judges intentionally misapplied common law in order to arrive at their predetermined decisions. This issue is exposed in the annotated versions of their opinions, which are linked here.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

      Open an annotated version of King County v. Rasmussen (2001) at the location Judge Rothstein refused to acknowledge the precedent set in King County v. Squire.

      Open an annotated version of King County v. Rasmussen (2002) at the location Judge Fletcher refused to acknowledge the precedent set in King County v. Squire.

      Open an annotated version of Ray v. King County (2004)) at the location Judge Cox refused to acknowledge the precedent set in King County v. Squire.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge 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?

         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.)

Conclusion:

         A comparison of the Hilchkanum and Squire right-of-way deeds to the SLS&E combined with the analysis in King County v. Squire (1990) destroys the conclusions, in King County v. Rasmussen (2001), King County v. Rasmussen (2002), and Ray v. King County (2004), that Bill Hilchkanum was responsible for the words in his right-of-way deed to the SLS&E and intended to convey fee simple title to the Railway. In Squire, the court identified which words of the right-of-way deed were composed by the Railway lawyers and which words were added or changed by Watson Squire. Because the words in a deed are construed against its author, the Squire court gave extra attention to the words altered or added by Governor Squire in order to understand his intentions. The Squire court found that the words in the Squire granting clause "strongly suggests conveyance of an easement", and that the words added by Governor Squire to the habendum reiterated that intention. The words in the Squire granting clause were taken from the SLS&E "ELS form deed which was composed by the Railway lawyers. These granting words are exactly the same as the granting words in the Hilchkanum right-of-way deed and other SLS&E right-of-way deeds from that location and period.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)

         In Rasmussen and Ray the Hilchkanum judges refused to recognize that the lawyers for the Railway wrote the words in the Hilchkanum deed. They refused the Consitiutional right of the Rasmussens and the Rays to establish that disputed material fact before a jury. Instead the judges found that Hilchkanum, an illiterate Native American who could not even sign his own name, was responsible for the words in his right-of-way deed. The Rasmussen judges found that Hilchkanum actually authored his right-of-way deed. Ridiculous! They refused to recognize that the lawyer responsible for those words was SLS&E lead attorney Judge Thomas Burke, an expert in property law and one of the most respected Chief Justices of the Washington Territorial Supreme Court. Further, they refused to accept the precedent set by the analysis of those words in Squire, which found an easement had been granted. Instead, the judges who construed the Hilchkanum deed hid the comparison of the Squire and Hilchkanum deeds, and irrationally found that a fee simple grant had been made by Hilchkanum. They arrived at their decisions by allowing summary judgment with the knowledge that they were illegally deciding questions of material fact. Their finding, that the Hilchkanum grant was fee simple, hid the federal tax fraud scheme used to railbank the BNSF East Lake Sammamish right-of-way and protected the active participants in the fraud from being held accountable for their crimes.
        (My statements describing wrongdoing or criminal actions on this webpage are a First Amendment expression of my opinion.)






































Last Update: 2012-02-29