CASE # 340813 Michael L. Darland, et ux v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District Original case: KITTITAS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT No. 042004112

Date:        December 29, 2016

From:       Louis Leclezio 

To:            Douglas Warr Nicholson

Cc:           The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington Division III: Honourable George B. Fearing, Honourable Robert E. Lawrence-Berrey Jr., Honourable Rebecca L. Pennell. c/o Townsley Renee, Roberts Joyce, Dressler Samantha; Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks, Daniel P. Mallove, Scott R. Sawyer, James McBride, Brian Dorsey, Cone Gilreath, Rick Osborne - Amerititle; Richard Kloss, William Popp, Jeffrey Slothower.

Subject:    Questions and Remarks of the Honourable Judges during the hearing held at 1:30 PM on December 6, 2016 - CASE # 340813

Michael L. Darland, et ux v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District

Original case: KITTITAS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT No. 042004112

Douggy,

Thinking about the questions and remarks of the Honourable Judges during the above hearing brought a few questions to my mind.

According to the Memorandum Decision of Judge Michael E. Cooper dated April 29, 2005, the issue that remained to be addressed was to what extent, if any, was the District obligated to confer additional special benefits to both Plaintiffs Leclezio and Darland. 

That Partial Summary Judgment ruling applied to the claim that had been filed by you in Kittitas County Superior Court on behalf of both plaintiffs Leclezio and Darland.

How can you in 2016 pretend to debate the very same issue for the sole benefit of Darlands?

As you well know that deferred issue was left opened by Judge Cooper for the benefit of both claimants Leclezio and Darland.  Furthermore, in his decision Judge Cooper specifically referred to the fact that the Sworn Declaration of Leclezio influenced his decision.

After willfully amputating the Leclezio leg from the claim, how can your appeal arguments be still legitimate?

By your own action, referred to above, have you not turned the whole case and all the past rulings delivered for the benefit of both plaintiffs into a meaningless lame claim that can no longer stand on a single leg?

No wonder that in December 2015 the Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks stated: "Nothing establishes the need to have a trial about anything". 

Judge Sparks may as well have added: The absence of one of the plaintiffs from the original case renders the case and all past rulings null and void. 

If trial there could be with Darland as sole claimant, a whole new case would have to be filed and it should solely rely on a Sworn Declaration by Michael L. Darland.

Douggy, when you xd me out of the case did you not put an x on the original case altogether?

In contrast with your original opinion, do you now truly believe that Michael L. Darland could  have established the need for a trial by himself 11 years ago?

Douggy would it not be wise for the Honourable Judges of The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington Division III to return this lame FRAUDULENT case to the Kittitas County trial court?

The Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks could then once again dismiss this whole affair as a fraudulent hoax.

He could then award all costs and expenses to the defendants who have suffered unduly for many years through yours and Michael and Myrna Darland's absurd circus act of contortions and illusions.

Just think about it Douggy...

Starting in 2017 and onwards I wish you Douggy a change of heart. 

I hope and pray that you can discover the joy, rewards and excitement of dealing in a fair and equitable manner 

Sincerely,

Your past client,

Louis Leclezio.