Saturday, July 30, 2016

Appeal by Michael L. and Myrna Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District in front of Washington State Court of Appeals Division III

Washington State Court of Appeals Division III 
cc to: 
Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks
Kittitas County Prosecutor
Attorneys: ; ; ; ;
bcc to: ; ; ;

Dear Mrs. Townsley, 
Clerk, Washington State Court of Appeals Division III,
500 N. Cedar ST. 

Re:  Case # 340813 - Appellants Michael L. Darland and Myrna Darland, husband and wife, et al. v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District

I realize that this is an exceptional situation and that the exception is not the rule.

I believe that all parties affected and referred to in briefs in front of any Court have the most basic right to be heard.

I further firmly believe that any court case that is built on a fraudulent foundation must eventually collapse and be interred once and for all.

Therefore, based on my twelve years of experience with this case, I urge the honourable Judges of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III, to look beyond case law precedents. 

The Judges would be well advised to reach for the heart of the claim and to closely inspect its foundations right from inception. 

Is the claim grounded in truth or does its structure rest on fraud and deception. 

As the honourable Judges read on, it should not take long for the Judges to make this determination and decide if there is any merit in prolonging this twelve year old case.

A simple question is, how can any Judge be expected to render a fair and just judgment when that Judge or Judges have been deliberately misled by an officer of the Court, who is supposed to be held to the high ethics of his profession for over twelve years?

How can any Judge be expected to render a fair and just judgment if and when he has not heard from all parties that have played a key role in a particular claim and have been referred to in various briefs?

Is it not only after considering all relevant testimony from all parties affected that a discerning Judge will be able to, with wisdom, fairly sort out a host of different fallacies, designed to serve a particular moment in time, from the unvarying truth?

Please note that, as an involved party from day one, the truthful facts that I wish to bring to the Judges' attention, through this Supplemental Brief, can be easily verified and substantiated by various documents that have already been filed with Kittitas County Superior Court  over a period of approximately twelve years. 

I hope and pray and I am confident that with the additional information contained in this brief, the Honourable Judges of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III  will reach a decision based on all sounds of the bell.

Uncontroverted Fact:

I have been defrauded by Michael L. Darland and his wife Myrna Darland. (Darland).

As a consequence, I have been irreversably hurt and irreparably damaged by Darland and by our joint attorney Douglas Warren Nicholson (Nicholson) practising in Ellensburg.

Ever since, I have committed myself to do my utmost to stop Darland and Nicholson from misleading the Courts and defrauding anyone else. 

As we will see throughout this Supplemental Brief, before Darland robbed me of my interest in the 76.8 acre property on Snoqualmie Pass, Darland, Nicholson and Judge Michael E. Cooper, (Cooper) all three recognized that Darland had no standing to bring any sort of a claim against the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District. (SPUD). 

All three mentioned above reached that obvious conclusion because Darland never had any negotiations with SPUD. Darland never paid any money to cover assessments to SPUD. 

Yet now, Darland,standing alone, is bent on attempting, with the active participation of Nicholson, to defraud SPUD, a semi government entity that provides key services to the public. 

How could it ever be fair and just for Darland to win his case, against SPUD when as Judge Sparks pointed out, Darland is claiming a refund plus interest for assessments that were paid by Miller and I and that I have resigned myself to lose long ago.

If Darland were to win his case while seeking a fraudulent windfall, I would no longer be the only one to have been defrauded by Darland in this case. It could possibly be all the residents of Snoqualmie Pass and surrounding areas that would be defrauded. They may be called upon to bear the burden of the fraudulent claim by Darland through increased servicing rates.

A refund of $492,000 paid some thirty years ago plus interest thereon could very well affect the quality of the services that SPUD has so far been able to provide. SPUD may not only have to increase its monthly rates for its services but additionally, it could hinder SPUD's bonding abilities to finance future improvements. 

In my opinion, should Darland ever collect such a refund, that would truly be a case of unfair enrichment.
Please consider that Darland only paid $750,000 for the entire property with zoning in place plus $492,000 already paid by Miller and I in assessments and a stand of timber worth approximately $600,000 at the time.

By appealing the very wise and discerning decision of the most Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks, Darland and Nicholson choose to ignore the subtle red flags kindly raised by Judge Sparks. 

Highlights of Judge Scott Sparks' Decision:

In his decision of December 9, 2015, Judge Sparks wrote:

 "Nothing establishes a need to have a trial about anything."

The Honourable Judge Scott Sparks further demonstrated his acute understanding of case # 04 -2 - 00411 - 2 filed in Kittitas County Superior Court way back in 2004 when he pointed out in his decision that the Darlands never had any negotiations with the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District and never paid a penny to that Utility District.

Judge Sparks:

"Having exhausted their ability to obtain adequate access to this property... Plaintiffs resort to the only remedy they can presently conceive of: a money judgment against defendants for the value paid of past assessments, plus interest. This request is put forth with full knowledge that plaintiffs ( Michael L. and Myrna Darland) themselves never paid a penny towards those assessments..."

Had Judge Sparks been briefed on other aspects of the case, Judge Sparks may have added: Having exhausted all attempts to extort unreasonnable value from the general public, from government entities and from various environmental groups over more than ten years... Plaintiffs resort to the only remedy they can presently conceive of: a money judgment against defendants for the value paid of past assessments, plus interest.  At the same time plaintiffs, Michael L. Darland and his wife Myrna, attempt to assign blame for their failures onto scape goats through sordid and novel allegations.

Judge Sparks reached his wise decision without even being aware of the stratagems that were set a foot to intentionally mislead Kittitas County Superior Court Judge Michael E. Cooper from the very start of the case way back in 2004.

Judge Sparks was never briefed on how and why the initial joint claim by the Darlands et al was framed the way it was. The et al being myself from 2004 to 2006. In and after 2006, after my cancer surgeries and chemo therapy treatment, Darland, Nicholson and Cooper decided that I had served my purpose and I could be treated as if prematurely dead.

Indeed, if in 2015, Judge Sparks had also been briefed on the deception that was conjured up to give this case standing, Judge Sparks, in his final condemnation of the case, may have gone beyond stating: 

"Nothing establishes a need to have a trial about anything." 

And then merely dismissing the case without costs or fees.

Judge Sparks may have imposed stiff penalties to be paid by Darland for the benefit of SPUD and sanctioned attorney Nicholson for his leading role in that fraudulent claim.

As the 'et al' plaintiff at the origin of this case, I witnessed first hand the planning and the laying out of the fraudulent foundations of Darland's claim.

It is high time for me to bring out in the open a few of the facts and all the conspiration that went on in order to give standing and credibility to the joint claim filed on behalf of Darland and Leclezio in 2004 against SPUD.

Historical Background Highlights:


1. In or around June 2003, Michael L. And Myrna Darland acquired a 76.8 acre parcel of raw land from a Miller Shingles/Leclezio joint venture. Darland received and accepted a Bargain and Sale deed at closing
2. Prior to closing, Michael L. Darland, an experienced real estate purchaser, researched various aspects of this property transaction.
      a). Darland asked for and received proof that approximately $492,000 had been paid to the Kittitas County treasurer for the benefit of (SPUD) in connection with water and sewer assessments.
      b). Darland asked for and received proof that the property had been rezoned commercial.
      c). Darland asked for and received proof that Trendwest had intended to acquire the 76.8 acre parcel for $6 million and that the deal fell through due to tortious interference by SPUD.
      d). Darland was informed that no title insurance company would insure access to the property.
      e). Darland asked for and received all available information contained in a 3 inch clip file regarding past work done on the access easement problem.
       f). Darland was made aware of the fact that I had worked with David Sagar of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) over a long period to obtain a 60' easement from them.

After many meetings and trips to Yakima, Ellensburg and on the site in Snoqualmie, WSDOT had been ready, willing and able to either outright sell their 'surplussed' parcel of land identified as parcel IC# 5-19-000237 to Miller Shingles and I or to grant us a deed for a 60' easement across their property abutting the 76.8 acre parcel.

The consideration WSDOT asked of us in exchange for the 60' easement was for us to build a road, that would lead to ours, across their property. The building of the road would create a win - win situation for both WSDOT and us. 
In reality, the granting of that easement to Miller and I would be at no extra cost to us. We would have had to eventually build the access road to our property in any event.
      f). Darland was further made aware of the fact that after the easement deed had been prepared by WSDOT and after it had been reviewed by the Miller Shingles attorneys, Tom Collins and Jeff Capelleto of Everett, the Millers refused to proceed with the transaction. 
The Millers neither wanted to buy the surplussed property nor would they agree to build the 60' access road across the WSDOT parcel. 
Obviously, WSDOT could not grant us the 60' easement without receiving any consideration. Miller Shingles chose to let the deal fall through after I had worked on it for years.
      g). Upon being told those facts, Darland maintained that no property could be land locked and that he was prepared to take his chances and that he would resume negotiations with WSDOT.
      h). Darland informed me that he had worked closely with the WSDOT. That WSDOT had praised him for the superb work that he had done for them in the past. That he had good contacts and should have no problem resurrecting the 60' easement.
      I). As part of his further due diligence, Darland dispatched his ex employee, close neighbor and friend, traffic engineer, William Popp Sr. to meet with the Kittitas County engineer. Darland wanted Popp to verify my representations to him.
      j). On his return from Ellensburg, Popp informed Darland and I that he had verified everything Darland had asked him to and that everything was as I had represented to them.

Once Michael L. And Myrna Darland had completed their due diligence, we were all equally desirous to close on the transaction.

In order to close on their 76.8 acres purchase, the Darlands agreed to pay $750,000 in cash  and have the deed recorded in the Darlands' name.

As additional consideration Darland wanted to step in my shoes and agreed to finance a law suit against (SPUD) in exchange for a 2/3 rd share of whatever benefits would accrue from all of my potential claims against SPUD.

In parallel with the filing of a law suit, we agreed to concurrently seek buyers for the property. 

Darland and I agreed to split any proceeds from the law suit against SPUD or from a resale of the property as follows:

1. Upon a resale of the property, I was to receive 1/3rd of the profits.
2. Upon a cash settlement being received from (SPUD) for a refund of assessments paid by Miller and I to the District, I would receive 1/3rd of the proceeds after deducting legal costs and fees.
3. Upon a cash settlement being received from SPUD for damages amounting to a minimum of $6 million suffered by Miller and I as a result of tortious interference by SPUD, I would receive 1/3rd of the proceeds after deducting legal costs and fees.
4. Upon the Darlands and I successfully renegotiating the 60' easement access into the property I would receive 1/3rd of the 76.8 acre real property. We agreed on 26 acres.
5. Upon the Darlands accepting a settlement with the District with regards to access or provision of services that I had paid for, I would receive 1/3rd of the property - 26 acres in extent.
6. With that understanding in place, Darland closed on his purchase.
7. As soon as the Darlands had closed on their acquisition, they were anxious to start the law suit against SPUD. 
8. In comparison with the small amount of cash out of pocket that Darland had paid, Darland looked forward to a major windfall resulting either from the law suit or from a resale of the property.

The beginning of the fraudulent stratagem:

Unfortunately, for any claim against SPUD to stand, it would have to be rooted in fraud and deception as we will see below. 

Even more regrettably, over the last 12 years, Darland would see to it that as the claim evolved, the whole case would become increasingly fraudulent for his sole benefit. 

Indeed Darland's fraudulent claim has now reached its apogee in 2016 in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III. 


1. Before or after closing in 2003, the Darlands received legal advice that they had no standing to start any legal action against SPUD. The Darlands neither had any dealings with SPUD, nor had they paid the assessments to SPUD. 
Conversely Darland and the attorneys were in accord that neither would I have any legal standing to bring any kind of action against SPUD because I had already sold the property to the Darlands and the deed was to be recorded solely in the Darlands' name.
2. To circumvent that legal hurdle, Michael L. Darland proposed that I be placed on title as an owner of the 76.8 acres to mislead the Court into believing that, as joint owners, we had standing. I regrettably agreed to participate in the Darlands' subterfuge.
3. So, although I had sold the entire property to the Darlands. Although the Darlands had signed over a Quit Claim Deed for only 26 of the 76.8 acres to be recorded in my name at some future date and once certain conditions had been met, Darland instructed the attorneys to put my name on the entire title and to represent me as an owner of record in all papers to be filed in Court.
4. The Darlands and my joint law suit against SPUD was filed in 2004 with Kittitas County Superior Court and was recorded as case # 04 - 2 - 00411 - 2.

Whereas in case # 04 -2 - 00411 - 2  in front of the Kittitas County Superior Court the Darlands and I had to appear as joint plaintiffs to give standing to our claim, now in Case # 340813 in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III, the Darlands pretend and argue that they have standing even on their own! 

Yet, that was something the Darlands never believed they had between 2003 and 2005. 
That was something attorney Nicholson, likewise, did not believe that Darland had.
That was something that even Judge Michael E. Cooper of the Kittitas County Superior Court did not believe the Darlands had either, as reflected in his Memorandum Decision of April 29, 2005.
That was something the Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks did not believe the Darlands had according to his December 9, 2015 decision.

By 2006, although I was not dead, Darland saw to it that my name would, without my approval, disappear from the title to the 76.8 acres!


After Darland closed on the transaction around June 2003, much legal activity and court filings went on in 2004 to prepare for the case against SPUD. There were the usual interrogatories, discoveries, depositions and settlement proposals.


1. Once the ground work had been done in 2004, on or about January 22, 2005, our joint attorney, Douglas Warren Nicholson (Nicholson) of the Cone Gilreath law firm, as instructed by Michael L. and Myrna Darland filed a motion on behalf of plaintiffs Darland and Leclezio, owners of the 76.8 acre real property situated on Snoqualmie Pass. The motion was filed in Kittitas County Superior Court. Plaintiffs Darland and Leclezio sought a Partial Summary Judgment against SPUD 
2. Indeed, in paragraph 1 of the Partial Summary Judgment motion, under the heading: 'INTRODUCTION' Attorney Nicholson as instructed by Darland wrote: A.    The Parties. Plaintiffs, Michael and Myrna Darland ("Darland") and Louis Leclezio ("Leclezio"), are the owners of approximately 76.8 acres of unimproved real property ("The Property")....
3. Under B the next heading: "Overview of Issues and Purpose of this Motion", Nicholson wrote: "There are no public easements or other access rights to run the main lines to the property..."
4. Under II: Statement of Uncontroverted Facts: Nicholson stated "On or about June 12, 2003 the joint venture comprising Leclezio and Miller Shingle Company sold the property to plaintiffs Leclezio and Darland."
5. 2005 correspondence between Darland and Nicholson will show that Darland insisted on personnally reviewing all documents and approving same before any filings occurred.
6. Correspondence between  Darland and Leclezio will show that by 2005 because everything that I had ever told Darland since 2003 proved to be true, Darland was confident about the outcome of our joint action in case # 04 - 2 - 00411 - 2. .
7. Indeed, approximately two years after Darland bought the property, two years during which Darland had had all the time to investigate every aspect of the property, on March 1, 2005 at 6:54PM, Michael L. Darland sent me an email in which Darland wrote: "...Also that they verify everything that you have ever told me. Our best hope is that justice will be done and that honest people will not be defrauded."

Interestingly Darland appears to be the lead plaintiffs in all Kittitas County Superior Court filings. Yet in an answer to an Interrogatory, Michael L. Darland recognized that he had no standing. Darland let it slip out in one of his answers: "I agreed to assist Mr. Leclezio with his legal claims against the District." 
(See last paragraph p. 7 made available thru the link below.

Because Darland, Nicholson and I had connived to make Darland and I appear to be joint owners of the whole of the 76.8 acre property, on April 29, 2005, Judge Michael E. Cooper, trusting in the veracity of the brief presented to him in January 2005 by Nicholson, handed down his Memorandum Decision. In that decision, Judge Cooper granted Darland and I the Summary Judgment that we had asked for against SPUD.

In his decision outline, Judge Cooper confirmed that he believed that Darland and I had standing as joint owners of the real property. Judge Cooper in granting our motion clearly spelt out that he had relied on the representations made to him by Nicholson with regards to our joint ownership of the real property. Judge Cooper had trusted the representations made to him by an officer of the court.
In fact, Judge Cooper had no way of knowing that the statements regarding joint ownership made to him by Nicholson were false since my name had only been placed on title at the request and with the full knowledge and approval of Darland to induce the court in error. And attorney Nicholson, knew full well that his statements to the court were not true. 

Led into believing a lie, Judge Michael E. Cooper wrote in his decision of April 29, 2005:

Paragraph 1: Uncontroverted Facts: "Plaintiffs own approximately 76.8 acres of unimproved real property..."
Paragraph 2, p.2: "Von Holstein sold the property to Miller Company, a joint venture investment group that included the plaintiff Leclezio.

Once we had obtained the favourable Summary Judgment, the door was wide open for Darland, assisted by Nicholson to seek and finally obtain a Settlement Agreement from SPUD. The document was drafted by Nicholson but it was mostly conceived by and tailor made to suit Darland.

In the Kittitas County Superior Court room while discussing the pros and cons of signing the settlement agreement with SPUD and prior to advising Judge Cooper that SPUD, Darland and I had agreed to settle, my personal attorney, Brian Dorsey, and I insisted on getting Darland to first agree that once the Settlement would be signed by all parties, I would have fulfilled my obligation. 
Darland agreed and committed himself verbally to release the 26 acres over to me if and when a Settlement Agreement was in fact signed by all parties. 
Trusting Darland, Dorsey and I gave the green light to Nicholson to go ahead and let Cooper know that the Court case would be deferred. The next morning, when my attorney, Brian Dorsey prepared and presented to Darland a Memorandum of Understanding confirming his verbal agreement with Dorsey and I, in the Kittitas County Court Room the day before, Darland refused to sign it! 

In turn, I refused to sign the proposed Settlement Agreement with SPUD. Our joint attorney Nicholson immediately sent me a mail urging me to sign. I still refused. Nicholson then called me and, using various threatening scenarios, Nicholson put untold pressure on me to sign. I finally did after Nicholson guaranteed to me that he would see to it that I got my 26 acres.

1. Darland's subterfuge in front of Judge Cooper had worked. Once Darland had the Summary Judgment granted by Judge Cooper and a subsequent Settlement Agreement with SPUD as a result of the Summary Judgment being granted, the way was clear for Darland to dispose of me as a joint owner of the 76.8 acre property. And Darland did just that in 2006 as we will see below.
2. In 2005, Judge Cooper had been successfully duped by the fraudulent representation that I was an owner of record. Darland felt that he had a Judge that was an easy walk over. And unfortunately, that would not be the last time Darland and Nicholson would con Judge Cooper. In time they would turn the poor retired judge into such a rubber stamp that judge Cooper would no longer care to verify any of the statements of Darland and Nicholson.

For my part, when Darland refused to record the Quit Claim Deed for my 26 acres even after the Settlement Agreement with SPUD had been signed to Darland's complete satisfaction, I lost all faith and confidence in Darland. 

I finally woke up and realized what an idiot I had been to ruin my health at the risk of my life for such a shifty and mercenary character.

I had been most foolish to ever believe that I would and could make some money some day if I faithfully stuck by Darland's side as he had repeatedly asked me to do. 

It was clear to me that Darland would always figure out a reason how and where to lead me with a carrot but always deny me my earned goal.

Unfortunately, over time, my assessment of Darland's bad faith and ill intentions proved to be worse than I could ever have imagined.

By the end of 2005, the Settlement Agreement with SPUD was in place to Darland's delight. Yet Darland had refused to record my 26 acres in my name. The time had come for me to attend to my health. 

It was most alarming and clear to me that with my fast deteriorating health, I had to get medical help urgently or I may not be around for much longer.
For me time to attend to my health had become of the essence.
So, my health and not making Darland richer became my priority regardless of how much more Darland wanted me to accomplish for his eventual sole benefit while I was getting increasingly sick.

The Settlement was signed on or around September 29, 2005. 
In October 2005, I advised Michael Darland that I would be leaving for my home country, Mauritius, soon. There I could get all the health care and meds I would need absolutely free. I left for my island of Mauritius in the Indian on or around November 5, 2005

By the time I left the US, I was fully satisfied that I had gone well beyond the call of duty, even at the risk of my life to do my very best to serve Darland's best interest. 


1. From Mauritius, in early February 2006, I advised Darland that the doctors in Mauritius confirmed that I must have had cancer for at least five years for it to have reached the stage it had.
2. I had to undergo surgery asap. The surgery would have to be followed by chemotherapy to try to stop the cancer from spreading any more.
3. After I advised Darland that I needed to have cancer surgery, Darland's priority was to promptly request that I immediately sign a Quit Claim Deed over to him with respect to our joint purported ownesrhip of the whole of the 76.8 acre property. 
4. In turn, I asked Darland to either record the Quit Claim Deed he and his wife had signed over to me in July 2003 or to buy my interest in the Quit Claim Deed for only $1.5 million (one and a half million dollars.) I viewed that price as being most reasonnable compared to the $57 million that Darland was claiming the whole property was worth. Darland refused to record the, already signed, Quit Claim Deed for the 26 acres? So I refused to sign the Quit Claim Deed that he requested me to sign. 
(One of Darland's numerous valuations of the property is available through the following link:

(It is worthy of note that during all the time that Darland was coaxing me to keep my boat tied to his by sending me his wild valuations, not once did Darland ever suggest that I lied to him!)

6. A few days after I notified Darland that I needed to have surgery asap, while my head was already spinning preparing for my surgery, Darland sent me a get well wish by email.
7. In the same mail, Darland seized the opportunity to advise me that he had once more been successful at perpetrating another one of his evolving fraud. Darland had succeeded to unilaterally and arbitrarily remove my name, without obtaining the signature he had first requested of me, from the title that had shown me to be one of the owners of the 76.8 acres. Darland accomplished that latest fradulent feat without paying any cash consideration or recording the Quit Claim Deed for the 26 acres he had signed over to me. Darland never even paid the excise tax for the new recording of the deed!
8. Probably through sheer ignorance, and without much due diligence, neither the Kittitas County Auditor nor Rick Osborn of Ameritle knew to ask Darland why and how could attorney Nicholson, acting as an officer of the court, represent, with Darland's knowledge and approval that I was a joint owner with the Darlands if my name should not have been on title! Although Rick Osborne, manager of Amerititle, had my email adress, and knew me well, he chose not to verify Darland's tall tale with me. Instead, both the Kittitas County Auditor and Osborne simply swallowed whatever tall tale Darland told them and they complied with his request.
9. Please see Darland's mail to me dated February 22, 2006, reproduced below.

From Michael L Darland <>
Date: February 22, 2006 at 8:46:05 PM GMT+4
To: Louis Leclezio <>
Cc: Doug Nicholson <>, "James D. McBride" <>, Brian Dorsey <>

Subject: Update on title assistance request

Dear Louie:

Attached is a letter regarding the title matter on Snocadia for which I requested your assistance on the 8th of February.  I have good news regarding the outcome.

Best regards,

Yan Kee Way Lodge
Ensenada, Chile
February 22, 2006
Dear Louie:
I received your email and attachments of February 18, 2006 and was sorry to learn of your health condition but pleased that you finally consulted a doctor and are receiving medical advice and, I presume, treatment.  Myrna and I regret that you would not accept our offer to loan you funds for your medical expenses in addition to the financial assistance we were loaning to you for living expenses.  Earlier intervention may have reduced the severity of your current condition.
On the matter of the mistaken filing of your name on the title to the Snocadia property, our prayers were answered.  I never did receive a response to my email of February 8th requesting your assistance to help us on this title matter by sending the Quitclaim Deed as Rick Osborne, General Manager of AmeriTitle, requested.  As it turns out, you need no longer concern yourself with sending that paperwork to AmeriTitle. The Kittitas County Auditor’s Office reread all of the documents, including the Bargain and Sale Deed, and concluded that your name and address should never have appeared on the title and thus had it removed.  Now the title for the entire 76.8-acre property is, as it should be, registered in Myrna’s name and mine as husband and wife. The address has been corrected as well and, from this point forward, tax bills will be sent to my home and not yours.
I trust that this good news will be a positive assist in your rest and recovery.
Michael L. Darland

Totally in keeping with his general character, I have no doubt that to this day Darland must be most proud to have had the smarts, even if not the compassion, to write such a callous letter!

1. The best Darland could offer by way of 'heart felt' wishes in his get well wish mail was his most cruel and sarcastic remark: "I trust that this good news will be a positive assist in your rest and recovery." To this day, reading those lines still make me want to throw up.
2. In that mail, Darland goes further to demonstrate his uncanny knack to engage in deception when Darland writes: " Myrna and I regret that you would not accept our offer to loan you funds for your medical expenses in addition to the financial assistance we were loaning to you for living expenses.  Earlier intervention may have reduced the severity of your current condition." 
3. Incidentally, would Darland and his wife have wanted to help me with medical expenses three years after Darland had purchased the property, if I had lied to Darland about anything?
4. Unfortunately, in reality the Darlands' offer to help me with medical expenses caused me much anxiety and grief as time kept eroding away without any of their offer to help ever materializing!
5. The fact: Michael and Myrna Darland both knew for some time that I urgently needed medical attention. Michael and Myrna Darland both offered to help me financially with my medical expenses. But they were only willing to help (if ever) after we had put the whole Snoqualmie matter to rest.
6. Although they witnessed first hand, almost on a daily basis, my fast deteriorating health, it was certainly not a priority of theirs.
7. When I finally realized the above, I also further realized that Darland was loaning me my living expenses so that he could work me to death without pay. For example, whenever I told Darland that I found it increasingly painful and uncomfortable to go on long car trips with him to jointly take care of business, Darland would simply say: "Oh! Do not worry. I will drive, you must come, do not worry, there are lots of McDonalds and rest areas along the way to Ellensburg, Yakima and Snoqualmie. I will stop as often as you need to rest or go to the bathroom."
8. For Darland, all the above described deception would not suffice. In an apparent effort to wipe his slate clean and cover up his tracks, Darland engaged in correspondence with Rick Osborne of Amerititle in Ellensburg. In that correspondence Darland dared suggest that attorney Jim McBride and I had fraudulently put my name on title to the 76.8 acres without his knowledge or approval!!!
9. Darland had copied our joint attorney Nicholson with his, above reproduced, mail to me. Nicholson did not care to question how come Darland had instructed him to represent me as a joint owner of the 76.8 acres in 2005 and now a short year later, Darland could write: "The Kittitas County Auditor’s Office reread all of the documents, including the Bargain and Sale Deed, and concluded that your name and address should never have appeared on the title and thus had it removed.  Now the title for the entire 76.8-acre property is, as it should be, registered in Myrna’s name and mine as husband and wife."!!!
10. Far away from my children and numerous grandchildren in America, I was stuck in Mauritius days away from undergoing surgery when I received Darland's mail. I was anxious and in no  way shape or form to argue or defend myself against all of Darland's fraudulent misrepresentations and calumnies.

Darland's about face regarding my name as joint owner showing on title, as soon as he heard about my deteriorating health, confirmed that in 2003/2004/ Darland had instructed that I be put on title only to serve his single purpose and his sole benefit! Possibly wishing me dead, Darland must have figured/hoped in 2006 that I would never have the opportunity to reappear and expose his fraud to the light of day, now in 2016!

But, by the grace of God and by His sheer miracles, here I am still alive ten years later. In 2016, and I am still hoping to see justice done on earth in my lifetime.


1. By 2007, Darland had the Settlement Agreement with SPUD in place. In 2006, after requesting that I sign a Quit Claim Deed over to him, Darland had figured out how he could unilaterally, arbitrarily and fraudulently put the title to the 76.8 acres back in their name, Michael and Myrna Darland sole owners without disbursing a dime to anyone.
2. Therefore, by 2007, although Darland still did not own the 76.8 acres free and clear, Darland decided to embark on a marketing campaign to offer a proposed development covering the whole of the 76.8 acres for sale to the general public. Please see Darland's marketing plan and prices on his 

web site: 

For those who cannot afford the time to sift through Darland's blue sky fables on his Snocadia marketing web site, suffice to cite a few of Darland's representations:

"The current owner spent the last four intervening years resolving outstanding legal, water, sewer and access issues..."
(Thus, in 2007 Darland was still claiming that he could solve the access issue just like he had represented to all that he could and would be able to do back in 2003.)

"SnoCadia is the only Planned Unit Development, (PUD), on Snoqualmie pass that has all water and sewer hookups required for its development and it has them approved. (see Projected Land Use and Zoning Maps)."

"Due To An Overwhelming Response For Reservations We Are No Longer Accepting Reservations At These Prices

We have temporarily withdrawn advertising the availability of reservations for SnoCadia building envelopes."

"On February 12, 2008, Sixty Six (66) of the One Hundred Twelve (112) single-family building envelopes are reserved.  Of those available for reservation, Twenty (20) currently remain.  Nine (9) of the Twelve (12) ten unit condo clusters are reserved and no more remain available for reservation assignment to a specific individual.  One person is on the reserved waiting list for a Condo Cluster should any of those previously reserved become available for reservation.
We appreciate the overwhelming reservation interest.  

3. In his efforts to market the entire property as if he owned it free and clear, Darland appeared to have conveniently forgotten that in July 2003,  Darland had signed a Quit Claim Deed to 26 of the 76.8 acres. In 2007/2008 the Quit Claim Deed was still in escrow. The escrow instructions were that the deed should be recorded in my name when an acceptable settlement with SPUD was reached! 
4. After I discovered that Darland was marketing the entire property as if it were free and clear, I asked if Darland was not possibly committing fraud. 
5. Nicholson advised as follows: "What Darland is really up to, is to promote the land primarily to assert its potential development value as the State, in conjunction with various environmental groups, has indicated a willingness to discuss purchasing the property."
6. Obviously in his promotional effort to assert the developped value of the 76.8 acres, Darland had no qualms representing to the general public that he was ready, willing and able to sell to the public, individual parcels of land without any committment to ever deliver on his promises if he were successful to sell to the state or environmental groups.
7. I was concerned that Darland would negotiate whatever kind of a sale he could and take the proceeds without addressing my rights to 1/3rd of the profits or my interest in a portion of the property. 
8. When I expressed my concern, Nicholson further advised that Darland's, novel and latest, feeling was that if the easements could not be obtained to allow development for the property then Darland felt that I had not been able to satisfy the contingency to getting my part of the property and that he could keep it all!
9. That latest additional shift of position adopted by Darland caused me to take two actions:
      a). I decided to contact the State and some of the environmental groups that I had introduced Darland to, when in 2003/2004 we were already contemplating selling the property to such entities and share the profit on the basis mentionned above. Our motivation to sell as a whole was to save all the effort and hassles of securing the easements and developing the land. Obviously with my health condition, all along I had told Darland that was my preferred choice.
       b). However, when I spoke to, Bill White, the WSDOT executive in charge of real estate, he confirmed that they were interested to purchase the whole of the 76.8 acres for a reasonnable value. But that they would never entertain paying the astronomical value Darland was attempting to extort from WSDOT and others.
       c). When I spoke with Jill Arango, a representative of one of the environmental groups to whom I had introduced Darland back in 2003/2004, she informed me that they would be willing to pay approximately $4 million if we could get the property to appraise for around that figure. But they were also not in the least interested to consider Darland's unrealistic figures.  

Two quick excerpts from a mail that Darland had sent to Cascade Land Conservancy on November 9, 2005:

From: Michael L Darland [] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:05 PM
To: Tim Engstrom
Cc: Louis Leclezio
Subject: Re: Forest Service

".....We will not be able to take advantage of your current offer under the current circumstances.  We are willing to work with you to  seek a well thought out and carefully planned solution, but that will not happen between now and Friday.  Louie is out of contact at present and I will not act without him. (Emphasis added). I also am extremely busy trying to finish up my local matters for the season that I will be gone to Chile and am barely going to make my departure date as it is."

"My life has been and is filled with such challenges.  What needs to be done always, to others, seems impossible or highly unlikely to come about.  However, a powerful idea is hard to stop. ... We just have to have a story to tell that is full of truth and a demonstrated need having broad based support."

"I regret that we are not able to assist you at this time.  Please keep in touch while I am away and you may do so with this email address."
Best regards,

       d). Considering Darland's persistent hoggish and fraudulent  behavior towards me and with interested parties, I told my personnal attorneys Jim McBride and Brian Dorsey that we had to file a Cross Claim against Darland for specific performance under the existing agreements between Darland and I. One of which was a Memo of Understanding drafted solely by Darland in November 2004 granting me 1/3 of all benefits.
I was concerned that Darland was once again prematurely writing me off for dead!
        e). My personnal attorneys, Jim McBride and Brian Dorsey, concurred that Darland was not dealing in good faith. Although, I was broke, they were so appalled by Darland's behavior that they kindly agreed to represent me and to collect their fees after we had prevailed.


In 2009, much legal wrangling went on between my personnal attorneys, Jim McBride and Brian Dorsey. Doug Nicholson no longer really knew who he was representing, Darland and/or I.

Concurrently with the legal positioning that was going on, I was in and out of ICUs suffering from cardiomyopathy. According to the cardiologist, the cardiomyopathy was caused by the chemotherapy treatment that I had to undergo as a result of me waiting for so long to have my worsening cancer attended to. (No thanks to the Darlands.)

Throughout 2009 and the beginning of 2010, in order to deny me justice by delaying it, Darland spent much time, money and effort trying to block my ability to sue him. Darland saw to it that we would also spend much time, money and effort to counter his repeated groundless stabs at trying to deny me legal representation.

Assisted by our joint attorney, Nicholson, Darland filed a complaint with the WSBA claiming that McBride and Dorsey could not represent me because they had also represented him and Darland claimed that they had a conflict of interest.
After reviewing Darland's complaint which was supported by an affidavit obviously coerced out of his long time friend and neighbor, William Popp Snr., (Popp) - 

Mr. Jonathan Burke issued a decision on behalf of the WSBA on November 25, 2009.

Mr. Burke politely came short of calling both Darland and Popp liars.

Mr. Jonathan Burke's decision can be viewed through the link below:

Some time in early 2010, Shortly after the 45 day Appeal window had expired, Darland appealed the decision of Mr. Burke in an attempt to once again deny me justice by consistently delaying it. 

There is nothing new in 2016. Darland is again desperately trying to deny justice to SPUD by appealing, without real merit, Judge Scott Sparks' ruling of December 9, 2015. But, does Darland really deserve any consideration since his claim is rooted in deception, fraud and perjury?


In 2010, after the WSBA had rejected Darland's appeal, the way finally appeared clear for us to file our cross claim action against Darland.
But Darland would once again delay the course of justice by threatening that if we attempted to sue him, he would get Jim McBride disqualified because Jim McBride would have to be called as a material witness.

Eventually around June 11, 2010 Dorsey advised that he was ready to file our Cross Claim against Darland.

Once filed the usual legal wranglings, interrogatories etc. went on. Public documents in connection therewith are available through Kittitas County Superior Court.


By October 2011, Darland had successfully exhausted my attorneys, Jim McBride, Brian Dorsey and myself.

In spite of all his written assurances for years that he would see to it that I would collect my due from Darland, Dorsey abruptly left McBride's office without any warning in early 2011. When Dorsey left to join the Snohomish County Prosecutor's office, Dorsey submerged Jim McBride under a huge load of work, including my Cross Claim against Darland that had been spearheaded by Dorsey.

To make matters worse for Jim McBride, at that very time, the latter had a number of problems of his own including prostate cancer. To this day I am most grateful to Jim McBride for all he did for me over many years. He could not help being sick and being unable to cope with all the work that Dorsey had unexpectedly dumped on his lap.

Finally, Darland had also exhausted me who had been fighting for justice to prevail for over 8 years while also, and more importantly, fighting for my life.

In late 2011, I was suffering from much vertigo. I was scheduled to undergo a third cancer surgery behind the ear in early 2012. Therefore in October 2011, after Darland had used every conceivable trick to deny me justice and exhausted my attorneys and myself, I was in no condition to devote much time to more antics from Darland.

I had waited for justice to prevail since 2006 when I underwent my first cancer surgery. 

At the October 11, 2011, hearing, Slothower advised Cooper that It was time for Cooper to grant the Summary Judgment to Darland because "it was time for Darland to move on". Slothower stated to Cooper that Darland could not wait for McBride to bring another attorney on board. Darland no longer needed to delay justice. He had delayed it for long enough, the scene was now set to deny it to me within minutes. Cooper had been brought out of retirement to act as Darland's rubber stamp. Within thirty minutes Cooper obliged and acted as such. Cooper knew that, once retired, irrespective of how wacky his ruling was, his monthly retirement check would not be affected.

According to the transcript of the hearing, Judge Cooper intentionally ignored the many issues of material fact that merited a trial before any Summary Judgment could be handed down. For example, Cooper did not care to recall or review any of the facts presented to him previously.

Could and should a conscientious active Judge have asked:
1. How and when did Darland become the sole owner of the 76.8 acre Snoqualmie property contrary to what Nicholson had represented to Cooper in 2005? 
2. Was the affidavit of William Popp Sr., Darland's close friend, ex employee and neighbor factual or fabricated for the benefit of Darland and possibly Popp?
3. Could that affidavit have been discredited as easily as the one Popp had presented to the WSBA in 2009?
4. Once discredited, could Popp have been charged with perjury for signing under oath a false affidavit?
5. Had that affidavit also been coerced out of Popp by Darland and Nicholson like the one Popp had provided to the WSBA?
6. What were the conditions attached to repayment of the loans Darland had made to me? 
7. Were they due to be repaid upon either a sale of the property or out of the proceeds of a settlement with SPUD? 
8. Did the Settlement with SPUD occur as a result of granting a Summary Judgment to plaintiffs Darland and Leclezio, represented to be the joint owners of the subject property?
9. Did Darland honour his agreement with Leclezio? If not why not?
10. Under what conditions and relying on what guarantees stated by whom, had Leclezio signed the Settlement Agreement with SPUD?
11. Darland started marketing the entire property as if he owned it free and clear in 2007. Why did Darland wait until 2011, three years later, before quietening title in his name if he had been so eager to move on?
12. Were my blogs and internet posts truly diffamatory and inflamatory or were they factual, verifiable and intended for the public good? 
13. When and why did Leclezio have to move temporarily to Mauritius and why has Leclezio been stuck there ever since?
14. Why was Slothower representing in one breath that he never had my physical adress to serve me while in the next breath Slothower stated that I was a prolific writer? In fact, I was considered to be "a prolific writer" because I had adressed a number of certified mail to all parties concerned. My return adress was clearly visible on the envelop and at the head of the letters?

But Cooper, did not care to find out how and why the Darlands put me on title as an owner of record from 2003 to 2005. Although, according to Cooper's decision of April 29, 2005, that was a very material fact that had to be considered back then, in 2011 Cooper considered nothing before awarding a Summary Judgment to Darland.

And the answer to that question: How and why the Darlands put me on title as an owner of record from 2003 to 2005 should be even more material in 2016 in front of the Judges of the Washington State Court of Appeals.

But in October 2011 Cooper did not care to know how Michael L. Darland had my name removed from title in 2006 once I had served his purpose without, in return, recording the Quit Claim Deed for the 26 acres Darland had signed over to me or paying any other consideration!

No! Cooper had come to deliver on a platter, everything and plus that his local cronies, Nicholson/Slothower had asked of him! And Judge Cooper would do so with "pleasure" as Cooper would say to Slothower at the end of the hearing! (See bottom p.12 of the hearing transcript held in front of Cooper on October 11, 2011 available through link below!)

Who could ever imagine being able to strip someone of over twenty years of time, effort and hundreds of thousands of hard earned dollars invested and doing so with pleasure? And for what reason? What wrong had I done to deserve such a drastic loss of everything? Was Cooper only motivated to support unfair enrichment by Darland?

Approximately thirty years after coming to the US, within thirty minutes, Darland, Nicholson and Cooper had transformed my American dream, built up brick by brick with the help of my wife and children, into a horror nightmare! No thanks to Darland, Nicholson and Cooper.

By October 11, 2011, seven years after we had filed our original law suit against SPUD, Darland's repeated delaying tactics to deny me justice had finally worked out for him.

1. Obviously knowing the outcome of the case even before getting in the court room, even before Cooper had granted Darland a Summary Judgment, within 30 minutes, to, among a number of requests Quieten title to the whole of the 76.8 acres, into the Darlands sole name, Darland was already asserting that they were the sole owners of the 76.8 acres in briefs before the court.
2. If that were so in 2011, who committed perjury in 2005 when they represented to the same Cooper court that Darland and I were the joint owners of the subject property?
3. In the Kittitas County Superior court room of retired Judge Michael E. Cooper, regardless of conflicting antecedents reviewed and ruled upon by Judge Cooper himself back in 2005, now in 2011, the mere fact that Michael L. Darland and attorney **Douglas Nicholson/Slothower said so, ipso facto made it so!
**Note: By 2009, Mr. Nicholson had become so fearful about the real possibility of facing a malpractice law suit that he left the Cone Gilreath firm to go hang his shingle at Latrop, Winbauer etc. 
From there, Nicholson could disguise himself as Slothower and use the latter as his mouthpiece to go on representing Darland, back stage, while claiming he was no longer Darland's attorney! What kind of a liability is Nicholson to the law firm where he gets to hang his shingle from time to time?

I was too broke financially and healthwise to appeal in late 2011. Moreover I only heard about Cooper's ruling in 2012 from Google's administration offices!

Before closing this chapter, I want to point out an interesting comment made by Slothower as reported in the transcript of the hearing at page 11 . That comment indicates that in late 2011, six years after the Settlement Agreement was signed by Darland and I with SPUD in September 2005, Darland's pipe dream regarding Darland solving the access issue including easements for pipe services still lived on. 
Mr. Slothower stated: "
"...subject to settlement agreements which Snoqualmie Utility District and the Darlands still view as viable"

That remark underscores the opinion of Judge Sparks four years later when in his December 9, 2015 ruling Judge Sparks states: "Having exhausted their ability to obtain adequate access..."

I realize that aside of demonstrating how daring Darland and Nicholson can be about misleading the courts and committing fraud after fraud, year after year, going from one hearing to the next, other than the fraudulent ownership representations, some of the above info is probably irrelevant in case #: 340813 before the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III.

Except that it demonstrates that in 2016, Darland is at it again. Darland is obviously hoping once more that eventually, having exhausted SPUD and attorneys Mallove and Sawyer, he will end up winning by default in front of whatever court next.


Probably because Darland, Nicholson and Cooper knew that I had invested much time, effort and hundreds of thousands of dollars for over 20 years in the 76.8 acre property in Snoqualmie.
Probably because Judge Cooper had, nonetheless decided within thirty minutes to strip me absolutely bare of everything, including my right to free speech, just because Darland and Nicholson/Slothower had asked him to do so and he had promptly obliged on October 11, 2011. Thereafter no one had the courage or decency to let me know about my atrocious fate at their hands. 
Were Darland, Nicholson and Cooper too ashamed, even if only in their subconscious, of their well below the belt blow, to offer me this minimum of courtesy?
When I eventually heard about the raw, rotten deal they had handed down to me, I could not help thinking that short of pulling a gun on me to kill my body as well, Judge Cooper was, in 2011, demonstrating that he believed that he was still living in the wild west.

It was the Google office that advised me about the order they had received from Judge Cooper to remove my blogs and 

Yet, those blogs were factual. They were, for the mostly supported by facts that were already part of the public domain and they were designed to act as a caveat for the better good of those who may have ever considered dealing with Darland.

At that time in early 2012, I was already suffering from much vertigo. I was about to undergo a third cancer surgery to remove a growth behind my year. That news sent my head spinning even more.

After the surgery, I spent much of my convalescent time developing a website to continue to expose Darland, Nicholson and Cooper to the whole world.

The adress of that site is:

Info in connection with documents connected with much of the case can be obtained from:


Once that site had been published and made available on the web, I felt personally vindicated. I felt that I had done my job to forewarn and forearm people about Darland.

I received lots of positive comments regarding that site including from some of Darland's close relatives who applauded my courage to disclose to the whole world who is the real Michael L. Darland behind the mask.

With the publication of that web site I had practically flushed much of Darland out of my system. My health improved and  apart from a few more stays in ICUs between November 2014 and March 2015, I felt generally better.


I was obviously delighted to learn that in his decision of December 9, 2015, Judge Sparks had clearly seen right through the opacity of the waters intentionally muddied by Darland and Nicholson. Too bad for Darland and Nicholson that in 2015, they could not bring their rubber stamp, aka, retired judge Cooper out of retirement to grant to them yet another 'victory'!

By 2015, I had, already long ago, resigned myself to losing the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I had paid approximately 20 years ago to SPUD for my share of their assessments of Miller and my 76.8 acres on Snoqualmie Pass.
I was also resigned to have lost the $6 million offer from Trendwest because SPUD could not perform.
Due to poor health and having exhausted my resources, no thanks to Darland, I was forced to also resign myself to losing the 26 acres that Darland was due to turn over to me as consideration for his purchase of the property. That was also in return for getting me to accept to offer him a piggy back on all my potential claims against SPUD on condition Darland financed those law suits.

Since my compelled deparure from the US to go and receive free health care in Mauritius in November 2005, I have resigned myself to live far from my five children and their spouses and my twenty six grandchildren. 

Living since 2005 in the Republic of Mauritius, I have resigned myself to live in relative poverty. Indeed, I have learnt to be happy to live under my present conditions.

BUT I, most certainly cannot resign myself to the fact that Darland could eventually collect the assessments that I paid to SPUD approximately 20 years ago.
Furthermore, I am revulsed at the thought that Darland could seize such a refund, with interest thereon, and that the whole community of Snoqualmie Pass, Hyak and Alpental could be adversely affected just because in early 2005 I accepted to assist Darland and Nicholson to file a fraudulent claim wherein I agreed that they represent me as one of the owners of the whole 76.8 acre property in order to validate the claim for, as it turns out, their sole eventual benefit.


Ten years ago, in 2006, when I was given up for dead and too weak to defend my rights meaningfully, who could have ever imagined that, ten years later, in 2016, I would resurface from down under.

And that from the other side of the world I would have the energy to rise up, even if only through cyber space, to shed the light of truth, all the way from Mauritius, on matters affecting the justice process in the US. From here I am happy to shine a light that will finally reveal the architecture, from the base up, of the fraudulent claim filed against SPUD in 2004 by Nicholson representing Darland and I.

In 2016, having exhausted alł attempts to enrich himself unfairly. Having exhausted all attempts to get access to realize his pipe dreams, Darland:
1. Unable to ever accept that he is wrong, looks for scape goats which he names SPUD and Leclezio.
2. Fortunately, by God's miracles, in 2016, the scape goats have recovered some of their horns and are ready to ram into Darland from all sides.
3. Among allegations made by Darland, in his pursuit to incriminate his scape goats, I must stress how dismayed I was to find that thirteen years after I had sold the property to Darland, eleven years after Nicholson, instructed by Darland, represented in his Summary Judgment brief, adressed to Judge Cooper, that there was no access to the property, Darland and Nicholson have the gall, now in 2016, to plaster all over their brief in front of the Judges of the Washington State Court of Appeals that I lied to Darland about access!!!
4. That specter of a lie originally surfaced in 2011. That was when Darland had to dream up a defense as to why he would not pay in full the consideration he had agreed to pay over to me in June 2003 and again in September 2005. i.e. Record the Quit Claim Deed to my 26  acres out of the 76.8 acre property.

Prayer for Relief:

Over the last few weeks, while working on this Supplemental Brief, my recurring prayers adressed to God have been:

1. Dear God, if it pleases You, please grant me enough time and energy to keep pouring my heart out in front of the Judges of the Washington State Court Of Appeals Division III before my heart stops beating.
2. Dear God, please see to it that Your Justice is finally delivered once and for all through the hands of the Judges of the Washington State Court Of Appeals Division III.
3. Dear God, please let Your Justice be done, not mine. 
4. Of course, my concept of worldly justice would incite me to ask that:
       a). No exception be ruled out when it contributes to meaningful Godly Justice.
       b). Judge Scott Sparks decision of December 9, 2015 be affirmed.
       c). Michael L. And Myrna Darland be ordered to refund, with interest, all unnecessary expenses incurred by SPUD since 2004. 
For some 12 years SPUD has been forced to defend itself against a fraudulent, frivolous and meritless lawsuit filed by Darland and Leclezio as Plaintiffs. 
Moreover considering that the Darlands and their attorney Douglas W. Nicholson knew full well from the beginning that Michael L. Darland had NO standing by himself.
That Michael L. Darland had given specific instructions that my name be placed on title and that I be referred to as an owner for the purpose of defrauding SPUD for, as it turns out, Darland's sole benefit.
       d). Darland finally gets a strong and hopefully lasting message that he cannot go on unchecked making it his lifetime's career to attempt to and or to actually defraud stockholders, partners, members of the general public and government entities alike.

Concerning potential disciplinary measures against, attorney/officer of the court, Nicholson, I hope that the following mails from Nicholson will further enlighten the Judges as to what action to take to bring Nicholson in line with the ethics of his profession.

Profile of Douglas Warren Nicholson over the years:

Which one of the emails below sent by attorney Nicholson should anyone believe in?

September 2005:

From: Doug Nicholson (

Sent:Thu 9/29/05 8:11 AM
To: Louis Leclezio (

Dear Louis,

I spent a sleepness night worrying about the consequences of this most
unfortunate set of circumstances. I am asking you to please reconsider your
position, and sign the Settlement Agreement with the District. The
agreement between you and Michael is completely separate and distinct. We
have come too far, and worked to hard, to bring the District in line only to
lose now.

August 2008:


Sent:Fri 8/08/08 1:38 PM
To: 'Louis Leclezio' (;
Cc: 'Jim McBride' (; 'Brian Dorsey' (; 'Kim Bailes' (

I apologize for the delay in responding.   I was on vacation and then swamped with deadlines upon my return.   Because I have represented both you and Mr. Darland, I cannot get involved in any dispute between you and him.  If there is a problem between you, each of you would need independent counsel.  I can, however, communicate with your attorney, Mr. Dorsey, on this subject.

Best regards,


September 2008:


Sent:Thu 9/25/08 9:53 AM
To: 'Louis Leclezio' (; 'Jim McBride' (; 'Brian Dorsey' (;
Cc: 'Michael L Darland' (


There are several statements in Mr. Leclezio’s proposed letter regarding my involvement in this matter that are inaccurate and need to be corrected.  First, I was not, and am not, his attorney in the litigation with SPUD.
On the contrary, I was brought in for the sole purpose of representing the Darlands.  Second, I did not put “untold pressure” on Mr. Leclezio to sign the settlement agreement with SPUD.

November 2009:

On November 25, 2009, Mr. John Burke of the WSBA also commented on attorney Nicholson's role acting as Darland and my attorney.
Mr.Burke wrote to Darland stating: "On July 14, 2004, a lawsuit was filed by Nicholson on your behalf against SPUD. The Summons and Complaint reflect that Nicholson jointly represented you, and McBride and Dorsey represented Leclezio only..."

Mr. Burke thus confirms that Nicholson's mails adressed to me in September 2005 and in August 2008 are the ones that can be relied on. 

As for Nicholson's mail dated September 25, 2008 in which Nicholson asserts: "First I am not and was not his (Leclezio) attorney in the litigation with SPUD..."

Anyone should draw their own conclusions as to Nicholson's credibility as an attorney acting as an officer of the Court.

Could it be that in the person of attorney Douglas Warren Nicholson, Darland found the ideal bird of his same feather to help him perpetrate his fraudulent crimes? 

After all, to my knowledge, in his dealings with attorney Daniel P. Mallove, in his dealings in front of Judge Cooper and in his dealings with me, Douglas Nicholson has demonstrated his proficiency at engineering deception. Except that Nicholson, as an Officer of the Court should be held to a much higher standard of ethics than a common individual like Darland.

Other than a retired Judge Cooper, why should any caring and self respecting Judge have any faith in any one of Nicholson's representations?

Let God's Will be done. I am confident that the Judges of the Washington State Court of Appeals will discern who is walking confidently along the well lit way of the truth and who is not. Twelve years after filing the suit in Kittitas County Superior Court in 2004, may justice be finally rendered once and for all in 2016.

Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks

I applaud Judge Sparks for his discernment and the wisdom he manifested in his decision of December 9, 2015
With a few words, Judge Sparks nailed Darland's meritless case in its coffin.
I hope and pray that in time Judge Sparks will be called to the highest Judgeship position in the land.

If interested - My Present Personal Profile:

Without Yahweh's help, I should have gone to the eternal home of silence long ago!

Yahweh never consents for ever to a corrupt act and a tribunal that imposes disorder as law.

Yahweh always sees to it that His Godly Justice will prevail by His own hands and by the hands of His wise followers.

I give all thanks and praise to God when I hear my cardiologist tell my wife in March 2016 that I am a walking miracle. 
That throughout his whole career he has never seen such a case. Where someone diagnosed with a dilated left ventricle and a heart, with an effraction rate of 20% only, can keep going on and on. 
Now, since May 20th., 2016, my heart beat has not slowed down below 98 bpm. And that, in spite of the cardiologist doubling my dose of Cordarone, Cardensiel and Digoxin and maintaining the same daily dose of Lasix, Spironolactone and Warfarin!

Yes, like my cardiologist, I also believe that it is a sheer miracle that I am still alive and that I still have enough energy to submit this supplemental brief to further the course of true justice.

I guess that only God knows what mission I must finish accomplishing before He calls me to face His Justice.

Although, I am thousands of miles away, living in a totally different time zone, unfortunately for some, I am not dead yet and I still want my voice to be heard, even if beyond the grave.

Please kindly let me know when is the Appeals Court scheduled to hear case # 340813

If I am still alive by then, and my health permits, I will glady make myself available for any video testimony that could prove to be useful.

In the meantime I will mail hard copies of this Unusual Supplemental Brief to all parties.

I thank you for your consideration. I wish you all God's blessings.

For better or for worse, let God's Will be done.

Psalm 9: 17-18

Yahweh, You listen to the wants of the humble,
You bring strength to their hearts, You grant them a hearing,
Judging in favor of the orphaned and exploited,
So that earthborn man may strike fear no longer.


Personally from where I am at in my life presently, that justice be ever done on earth only matters to me to the extent it matters to my children, grandchildren and Snoqualmie Pass residents who are dependant on services provided by SPUD.

No comments: