Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Case no. 340813 - Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Michael Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District.

Open letter to the Honourable Judges of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III.

Re: Case # 340813 - Michael L. Darland et ux v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District &
       Case # 042004112 - Michael L. Darland et al v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District.


Nota bene:

In 2004/2005, all attorneys consulted, including Douglas Warren Nicholson, were unanimous that case # 042004112 could have no standing in Kittitas County Superior Court without me, Louis Leclezio, being a party to it and a legitimate owner of record of the 76.8 acre subject property along Gold Creek at Hyak, Snoqualmie Pass.

That being so back then, now in 2016, how can case # 340813 have standing in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III without me being a party to it and a legitimate owner of record of the 76.8 acre subject property?

Before the whole Washington State Court of Appeals Division III wastes much more time on this deceitful appeal, may I suggest that the Honourable Judges get answers to the following elementary questions :

1. Was Leclezio a legitimate owner of record on the deed to the 76.8 acre subject property back in 2004?
2. If  Leclezio was a legitimate owner of record on the deed to the 76.8 acre subject property back in 2004/2005, how did Michael L. Darland manage, in 2006, to get Leclezio's name removed from the title without Leclezio's approval and signature and without paying any consideration to Leclezio?
3. Why did Michael Darland wait until after a Settlement Agreement was reached in September 2005 with The Snoqualmie Pass Utility District and five months after the said agreement was signed by both owners Darland and Leclezio before unilaterally and arbitrarily getting Leclezio's name removed from title in February 2006, a month before Leclezio had to undergo cancer surgery in March 2006?
4. If Leclezio was not a legitimate owner of record on the title to the subject property, why was he presented as such, by attorney Douglas Warren Nicholson, to Judge Michael E. Cooper, in case # 042004112 with the full knowledge and approval of Darland?
5. If Leclezio was not a legitimate owner of record on the title to the subject property, why did Darland and Nicholson not object to the finding by Judge Michael E. Cooper on April 29, 2005, that plaintiff Leclezio is one of the owners of the subject property? See: 'Uncontroverted Fact' in Judge Cooper's Memorandum Decision.
6. If Leclezio was not a legitimate owner of record on the title to the subject property, was Leclezio presented by Darland and attorney Nicholson as one of the owners of record for the sole purpose of deceiving Judge Michael E. Cooper into believing that case # 042004112 had standing through Leclezio? Leclezio was the only 'owner' who had negotiations with the Utility District and had paid 50% of the assessments with his partner Miller paying the other half.
7. If Leclezio was falsely represented as a legitimate owner of record on the title to the subject property, then case # 042004112 was fraudulent and had no standing. Likewise, case no. 340813 in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III is at the very least equally as fraudulent and should have no standing.


Dear Mrs. Renee Townsley - Clerk & Administrator Washington State Court of Appeals Division III,

Please kindly see to it that the following Honourable Judges get to review the questions above and the information provided below. 
Most of the answers to the above questions will be found in the forwards that I am sending to all interested parties today.

To Honourable Judges:
Kevin M. Korsmo, Presiding Chief Judge.
Laurel Siddoway, Chief Judge.
Stephen M. Brown, Acting Chief Judge.
Robert Lawrence-Berrey.
George B. Fearing.

Dear Honourable Judges,

May I begin by thanking Ms. Renee Townsley for her effort to see to it that justice is best served. To that effect, Mrs. Townsley kindly suggested that I get the help of an attorney to file a motion to allow me to present an amicus curiae brief to the Honourable Judges.

Unfortunately, my distant location, my present precarious health and my dismal financial  situation may not allow me to do so. 

However that should not be an insurmountable barrier inhibiting the course of unprejudiced justice.

We all appreciate that this rare exceptional case, in which a key party has been deliberately ignored by appellants will impose some crucial additional choices upon the Honourable Judges in their quest for an all encompassing equitable judgement.

Will the Honourable Judges kindly consider the following choices:

1. Allow procedural rules and regulations to hinder the Judges' ability to reach a decision based on all the facts and exhibits made available to the Clerk of the court for review by the Honourable Judges?
2. If and where rules and regulations stipulate that an attorney has to be absolutely on board to present an amicus curiae brief, will the Judges kindly instruct the Clerk of the Court to provide me with a pro bono attorney who will be allowed to file with the Court the critical key information that I went to great lengths, even at the risk of further impacting my health, to identify and to provide to the Court?
3. Ignore the easily verifiable most compelling fraudulent aspect of case # 042004112 from its very inception. 
4. To help obviate to such a short sighted decision, I will, once again, forward irrefutable evidence of fraud, perjury and corruption to Mrs. Renee Townsley for the Judges' review. That incontestable documentation, fraught with fraud and deception, alone should have precluded the case from ever being heard in Kittitas County Superior Court. Let alone allowing such a deceitful case abuse of the legal system for 12 years and land in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III.
5. Consider criminal charges against those found guilty of fraud, perjury and corruption designed to consistently mislead the justice system over the last 12 years.
6. Ignore my exhibits and my benevolent offer to assist the cause of Justice. 
7. Proceed with the case as if it were legit and unnecessarily delve into case law precedents as if case # 042004112  had standing in 2004/2005 and case no. 340813 has standing in 2016. 
8. That would necessarily imply that Judge Cooper and all attorneys involved in 2004/2005 were wrong in their opinion that without me being a party to the case and a legitimate owner of record the case could not stand.
9. Ignore all of the above evidence, offered freely, and deliver any kind of a ruling based on ??? ... Whatever...?

In my humble opinion, and without meaning to be disrespectful to the Honourable Judges, a ruling based on a very limited, selective and muffled, one side sound of a cracked bell would be most damaging to the image that such a high instance of the American Justice system would project.

Indeed, a ruling based on ??? ... Whatever...! would be more of the same gobbledegook that was dished out "with pleasure" by retired Judge Michael E. Cooper on October 11, 2011, at the end of his 30 minute marathon mock hearing in front of his kangaroo court.

During that hearing Cooper elected to ignore all procedural rules and regulations governing the granting of a Summary Judgment. Yet, his ruling stands to this day, in spite of the fact that it has had an international impact on my right to free speech through the Google platform!

I can do no more. I am happy to know that I have done my best, in the interest of all. 

I hope and pray to see justice prevail, hopefully within my lifetime.

Over to you...

Yours respectfully,
Louis Leclezio.


List of forwards to be sent to all interested parties today:

1. Mail dated January 22, 2005, from attorney Nicholson with the draft of his Partial Summary Judgment Motion attached. Therein Nicholson represents to the Kittitas County Superior Court that:
      a). Leclezio is a legitimate owner of record of the 76.8 acre subject       
            property.
      b). Lack of access to the subject property is a known fact and one     
           of the reasons for the motion.
After his review and minor corrections, Michael Darland approved those facts presented to the court by our joint attorney Douglas Nicholson working at the Cone Gilreath law firm in Ellensburg at that time.
2. Mail dated April 30, 2005 from attorney Nicholson's secretary with Memorandum Decision of Judge Michael E. Cooper attached.
      Therein Judge Cooper states as an uncontroverted fact that:
       a). Leclezio is one of the owners of the subject property.
       b). Leclezio had negotiations with the Snoqualmie Pass Utility.
Michael Darland again approved the uncontroverted facts presented by Judge Michael Cooper in his Memorandum Decision. A decision that lead to a Settlement Agreement being signed by Leclezio and Darland in September 2005.
3. Mail dated February 22, 2006 from Michael L. Darland with a letter from Darland attached. Therein Michael Darland stated that:         
       a). "My name and address should never have appeared on the title!"
     b). "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."

Interestingly, Michael Darland, for the first time, in February 2006, elected to no longer approve the very fact that he had previously approved twice. The very fact that referred to Leclezio as  a legitimate owner of record. And Darland, significantly only elected to do so after the Settlement Agreement with the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District had been signed by both Darland and Leclezio on or around September 29, 2005!

4. Mail dated April 20, 2012 from The Blogger Team (Google) with the transcript of the 30 minute hearing held on October 11, 2011, in front of retired Judge Michael E. Cooper attached.

5. It is worthy of note that no one actually involved with the hearing had the courage to advise me about my fate at the hands of ??? in October 2011. Not surprising...

6. When, in April 2012, six months after the fact, shortly after I had undergone my third cancer surgery, Google sent me a copy of the transcript of the hearing held in October 2011, it was too late to appeal and in any event, I was too sick and too broke and broken to do so.
Considering that little of that hearing applies to the appeal case # 340813, there is no need to burden the court with a detailed analysis of that hearing.


I will only brush on some of the highlights that I retained therefrom:

1. Apparently, in 2011, in spite of his written statement to the contrary in his mail dated September 25, 2008, addressed to various recipients, attorney Douglas W. Nicholson, finally woke up to the fact that he actually had a conflict of interest. To work around his glaring conflict of interest, attorney Nicholson changed law firms and temporarily moved back stage. Once Nicholson had moved his shingle from the Cone Gilreath law firm to the Lathrop firm, he quickly showed up again disguised as Jeffrey Slothower.
2. As evident in the transcript, attorney Slothower, for his part, did not have a personal conflict of interest. Slothower only had a major conflict between facts and fiction.
3. The transcript also reveals the candid honesty of James McBride, an attorney that I have much respect for. His ethics and candor are in sharp contrast with the cold, callous, calculated, conscienceless and corrupt attitude of the grasping attorneys representing the recidivist Michael L. Darland. According to hear say, Darland who has already, once before, taken advantage of  a partner suffering from cancer.
4. At the end of that gross October 11, 2011 hearing held in Kittitas County Superior Court, the cherry on top of the cake was offered by Judge Michael E. Cooper: "It's been my pleasure." 
5. Imagine stripping someone, within thirty minutes, of everything he and his family had worked for, for over thirty years and doing so based on hear say with "pleasure" and without the benefit of a trial to consider numerous issues of material fact!
6. A thirty minute ruling that has affected and will continue to impact my life, that of my five children and 26 grand children for years to come! 

Is that not enough to literally make anyone sick deep in the heart for ever?

That transcript is mostly offered to underscore the fact that this twelve year running case, manipulated by Michael L. Darland and attorney Douglas Warren Nicholson has proven to be enough of an embarrassment at least to poor retired 'judge' Michael E. Cooper, if not to Darland and Nicholson.
The Honourable Judges of such a high judiciary instance as the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III should not allow this sordid case to become any kind of an embarrassment to them also.

I applaud the Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks for not allowing himself to be as easily sucked in as Judge Michael Cooper was by Darland and Nicholson.

After reviewing the representations made by attorney/officer of the Court, Douglas W. Nicholson available in documents filed in Kittitas County Superior Court in 2005, re. Case no. 042004112 the Honourable Judges will concur that in 2015/2016, Nicholson may no longer have a conflict of interest with regards to representing Darland after first representing me then representing both Darland and I.

But Nicholson has to face a major conflict between his past representations to the Kittitas County Superior Court in 2005 and Nicholson's present representations to the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III in case no. 340813 in 2016.

Please compare attorney Nicholson's representations in Kittitas County Superior Court in 2005 with his statements in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III in 2016 with regards to the following:
1. My ownership of the subject property. 
2. My evident disclosure to all parties with regards to lack of access to the subject property.
3. Who had negotiations with the Utility District.
4. Who paid the assessments.
5. And therefore, who has standing.

In the light of the above, one wonders if attorney/officer of the Court, Douglas Warren Nicholson should have ever moved back from his back stage role pulling his puppet, Slothower's strings, to, once again, being Darland's puppet on many strings front stage? 

As such Nicholson is now forced to perform, regardless of conflicts between facts and fiction, and conflicts between past and present representations. Understandably, in order to go on earning his fees, year after year from Darland, attorney Nicholson has to jump in front of Judge Cooper,  jump in front of the Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks and jump again in front of the Honourable Judges of this high instance. And keep on jumping strictly according to the changing script that Michael L. Darland adapts continuously to suit the changing forums in his endless exploitation of opportunistic objectives through meritless manipulations.

Hear say:
Michael L. Darland's very own brother told me: "Michael is very good at thieving. He is even better at covering up his tracks."
I will let the Honourable Judges decide: What is Michael best at?

In God we trust. We trust that God will bless the Honourable Judges with His Wisdom and their ruling will be for the ultimate good of all.