Michael L.Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District in the Superior Court of the State of Washington County of Kittitas

IMichael L.Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District in the

Superior Court of the State of Washington County of Kittitas.

Today, exactly six months ago, Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks, on December 9, 2015 dismissed all of Darland's claims without cost or fees.

I would like to begin by thanking Ingrid Butler, Deputy Clerk, Kittitas County Clerk's Office for making available to me electronic copies of Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks' decision, dated December 9,2015 in case # 04 -2 - 00411 - 2 

Excerpts from Honourable Judge Scott Sparks decision:

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

"The case should be dismissed without costs or fees."

Seattle attorney Daniel P. Mallove represented defendant SPUD.

Ellensburg attorney Douglas W. Nicholson represented plaintiffs MichaeL L. And Myrna Darland.

How frivolous were the Darlands' claims?

Regardless of how frivolous, true to form, I was notified that Darland has appealed the decision of Judge Scott Sparks to the Washington State Court of Appeals.

That is Darland's typical Modus Operandi even when he knows he is absolutely wrong.

Darland will keep running up the legal fees and costs until he wins by default. Darland's tactic is simply to exhaust his opponents' financial resources.

For example, Darland kept prolonging my solid case against him for 5 years! Finally my lawyer and I were literally too sick and I became too broke to go on fighting for my rights. Darland 'won'.

In this instance, case #  04-2-00411-2, that Darland and I initially brought against the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District has been going on for 12 years!

By now, all aspects should have been long exhausted. Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks is right on: 

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

Enough is enough.

But Darland wil go on and on and on...

Although unlikely, should Darland prevail in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals, could this case end up being decided by the Washington State Supreme Court?

In that event, would it not be logical for the Washington Supreme Court to not only affirm Judge Scott Sparks decision but additionnally to award all costs and fees unnecessarily accumulated over the past 'x' number of years to defendants?

In the light of what both Ellensburg attorney Douglas Nicholson and Darlands knew from the start, this would only seem fair.

Doug,

As your past initial client you are well aware that I personnally paid you lots of fees to defend my best interests.

Subsequently acting as the joint attorney for myself and Michael Darland you received a lot more fees as a result of me introducing Darland to you so you could represent us both.

We have already discussed your conflict of interest and unethical behavior when, for reasons of your own, you chose to prefer Darland's interests over mine.

Running scared about your conflict caused you to:

1. Make false and conflicting statements in mails you adressed to me and others.

2. Leave the law firm of Cone Gilreath.

3. Join the law firm of Lathrop etc.

4. There in a devious manner you continued to represent Darland behind stage while using attorney Slothower to front for you.

5. Once you and Slothower got me out of the picture you promptly reappeared front stage as Darland's attorney! Your immediate reappearance confirmed what was already clear to me.

6. Now that you are acting solely for Darland, it is not surprising to me that the motion you brought forward in front of Judge Sparks claiming a refund of assessments from the District to Darland has been denied and the case dismissed without costs or fees.

7. But, Doug since you know that you have a sucker on the line, in the person of Michael L. Darland, you will stay true to your style. You will go on and on and on milking Darland for all you can.

8. With that primary goal in mind, you must have encouraged and advised Darland to appeal Judge Scott R. Sparks ruling in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals. 

9. Doug, keep chalking up your fees or else you may be asked to leave Lathrop also.

So, pardon me for chuckling when I note that you and Darland have learnt nothing from your past lessons.

Can you not recall Darland's loss, while being guided by you, in front of the Washington State Bar Association? 

And your loss again in front of that body's Board of Appeals.

Indeed, in his decision, Jonathan Burke Esq. of the Washington Bar was most polite not to call Mike Darland and his star witness William Popp Sr. Of William Popp and associates outright liars. A copy of that decision below might refresh your memory:

      http://snocadia-promoter-michael-l-darland.info/docs/chapter3/23.pdf

Comments in that opinion might also help you recall and recognize that, although you denied it to save your hide, you were our joint attorney.

As your past client, in order to help you to avoid receiving any further slaps in the face by way of lack of credibility and unethical behaviour, I would still like to offer you some friendly free advice based on what I know, on what Darland and you already knew and on the fact that Judge Sparks obviously saw through your changing arguments designed to fit different circumstances.

Reading through the lines of the Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks' decision, it is crystal clear to me that in his Solomonic wisdom, Judge Sparks hit on the main issues already known to you, Darland and I for over a decade.

In spite of that knowledge, should you be successful in appealing the decision of the Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks and should the case end up in front of the Washington State Supreme Court, be sure, that time round, to present all available uncontroverted facts to that panel of Judges. Such a new comportment coming from you may restore your credibility.

For the time being, based on my long background history with this case I could hear the bat crack as Judge Sparks hit some home runs.

In the past, when we worked together we used to pow wow together over issues. May we consider and discuss some of the home runs of Judge Sparks together. 

Claim for refund of assessments paid to SPUD.

Did the Honourable Judge Scott Sparks see through yours and Darland's character all right when he wrote:

"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..."

Knowing you and Darland as well as I do, I am not surprised that you would try your shameless luck while also trying to fool yet another Kittitas County judge. But, this time round, that Judge is obviously no fool. 

Judge Sparks knows the law and he also knows how to read through people and when to dismiss their pipe dreams. (No pun intended).

Hard facts:

1. Did you and Darland not both recognize at the onset that Darland had no standing to bring any claims against the District? Need I furnish you with some of the documents you prepared for us to refresh your memory?

2. Did you and Darland not wholeheartedly initially share and concur with Judge Sparks' opinion before you brazenly embarked on that stale claim by yourselves?

3. Is it not the fact that I had paid the assessments, the very reason, why Darland and you insisted from the word 'go' that I join in the suit as a Plaintiff in order to give it standing?

4. Was Darland not riding piggy back then? 

5. Did you try to provide a donkey's ride to Darland this time round?

6. In your opinion, what change would validate your claim and give Darland standing now?

7. Is it not because Darland recognized in 2004 that he had no standing that in answer to one of his Interrogatories Darland wrote: "I agreed to assist Mr. Leclezio with his legal claims against the District...." (See last para p.7 made available through link below) 

http://snocadia-promoter-michael-l-darland.info/docs/chapter3/7.pdf

5. Is that not why judge Michael E. Cooper, when he granted our motion for a Partial Summary Judgment against the District made sure to specifically name me as one of the Plaintiffs when he spelt out his decision? Indeed THE ONLY PLAINTIFF present who had standing because he had paid the assessments together with Miller?

6. Is it not because I had standing that back then Cooper could grant his Decision in our favor? (See para 2 p. 2) In that decision, did Judge Cooper not go through great lengths to quantify my efforts with the District and what brought about my and Darland's claims as JOINT PLAINTIFFS and its successful conclusion?

http://snocadia-promoter-michael-l-darland.info/docs/chapter3/6.pdf

Reading through the lines of Judge Sparks decision, it is clear that he weighed all of the above carefully before delivering his verdict.

That verdict underscores the fact that Darland and you cannot have your cake and eat it.

That should lead us to another question that begs being asked. 

Since I, THE PLAINTIFF  who had paid the assessments, am no longer part of case # 04-2-00411-2, Would you Doug not concur with me that the granting of our partial Summary Judgment by judge Cooper on April 29, 2005 should also be overturned and dismissed?

Should the Settlement Agreement reached with the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District, signed by Darland and I, as a result of Judge Cooper's decision not be rendered Null and Void and of no force and effect?

Moreover, is it not true Doug that you obtained that favorable ruling in front of Judge Cooper's court under a number of false pretences?

However, once Darland and you had used me to get what you wanted out of Cooper, you chose to promptly dispose of me. Inter alia, you ensured that Cooper would deny me free speech so the truth could be buried together with my blogs on Google. 

Concurrently, you saw to it that your friend Cooper would also dispossess me of everything that I had worked for for over 20 years! Wow! And you Doug accomplished all that through your smoke screen Slothower within less than 30 minutes! Yes thirty minutes!!! 

That was truly a spectacular 'win' Doug! Especially since for health reasons I could not travel and be present in court! In the light of my absence you can surely be proud of yours and Sloth's performance.

On the other hand, on this last time round, obviously you could not pull any wool over Judge Sparks' eyes! Remains to see how you will fare in front of Washington Supreme Court, should you ever get there.  

My advice: You will definitely need to pull some new tricks out of your hat and create stronger illusions to go on feeding Darland's delusions. 

Otherwise, if you did not succeed to fool Judge  Sparks with your same repetitive old show, I personally fail to see how you will manage to con the sharp Judges of the Washington Supreme Court.

As I read through Judge Sparks' overarching thoughts, I was further impressed by another ball park strike Judge Sparks zeroed in on and scored:

THE PRICE:

Judge Sparks writes:

"The price of the property when Plaintiffs puchased it necessarily included every facet of that property;... There was then and is now no cognizable claim for recoupment of previously paid ULID assessments."

Obviously, not made privvy to a number of other facets of the transaction, Judge Sparks could not spell out some of those additional facets that were included in the price when the plaintiffs took that deed.

All, including Darland, recognized then that the price paid by Darland for all the benefits he got was extremely low compared to inherent value.

Darland had precisely knocked the price down from the asking price of $1,100,000 to $750,000 after Darland had been made fully aware of the difficulties involved and the hurdles to be jumped with regards to access, water, sewer easements and the availability of those services.

This explains why Darland, all along as well as in his answer to Interrogatories, asserted that he was fully qualified to solve all problems and turn this project into a multi multi million dollar development. To confirm his assertions, Darland writes:

"I did not see nor did I require any assistance to purchase this unique property. I, among other things have a graduate degree in urban and regional planning. I also have the ability to make judgments on land that has the potential to appreciate given the proper conditions. I purchase raw land. I also based on its location, zoning, other nearby development and what appeared to be based on verbal representation of payments approximately $500,000 to the 'Kitsap' treasurer on behalf of the SPUD for water and sewer connections that it had substantial value". (Emphasis added)

http://snocadia-promoter-michael-l-darland.info/docs/chapter3/7.pdf

The Price:

How much did Michael L. Darland pay for the 76 acres of land including all its other assets on Snoqualmie Pass?

Darland only paid: $750,000.

On and above what Judge Sparks cited that was included with the deed, what else was also included in the low price paid by Darland?

And how much more did Darland NOT PAY for all else that was included with the total of the 76 acres?

1. Darland did not pay a penny towards the approximately $500,000 paid to the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District.

2. Darland did not pay a dime towards the value of the standing timber on the property estimated at the time at $650,000.

3. Darland did not pay a single red cent towards the expenses incurred with regards to rezoning the property. Approximately $50,000.

4. To crown it all and end it all, Darland did not ever even pay for the value of the 26 acres he had agreed to turn over to Leclezio as part consideration for Darland's purchase.  That was due to be either paid for upon a resale of the property or the 26 acres was due to be transferred over to Leclezio upon an acceptable Settlement Agreement being reached with the District. 

5. After Such an agreement, mostly written by Darland, was reached with the District, Darland reneged on his agreement with Leclezio! The value of the 26 acres at cost price back then was $260,000

6. Indeed by the time Darland made his purchase in 2003 my accountants had calculated that, with compounding interest, Miller and I had each invested $800,000, in that real estate 50/50 joint venture that we had purchased together in June 1989. That is  exactly 27 years ago.

So, let us recap:

Total additional value Darland received ENTIRELY FREE according to Darland's own estimation of values at the time of the transaction equals to a minimum of $1,460,000. That is almost double the amount Darland paid!

Well aware of that, no wonder that in one of his answers to the Interrogatories referred to above, at page 6, interrogatory # 9 Darland wrote:

"Key to the decision, were the verbal representations of Louis, regarding the approximately $500,000 that had been paid the SPUD for water and Sewer connections and the commercial zoning which the property had. I was also aware, based my experience in looking for raw land in Kittitas County, and the fact that Lowes was developing Suncadia, that raw land, zoned for development, and which also had water and sewer, were valuable commodities not to mention the proximity to the winter sports and public golf courses of Suncadia during the summer months."

At page 8 of the same Interrogatory document referred to above, Darland, in answer to Interrogatory # 11 gives us a glimpse of his perceived real value of the land he had purchased for $750,000 only! (Should I be writing 'stolen' instead.)

* "Based on recent land sales in the Suncadia development and our access with a 15 minute drive to the two public golf courses at Suncadia and our unique (not available to Suncadia) winter sports proximity to the Snoqualmie Pass and the Gold Valley at our back door, it is undeniable that our 230 lot potential development could provide us with gross revenues in the range of $34,500,000 if our building sites sold for an average of $150,000 each or as much as $57,500,000 if the average sale price of a building site were $250,000. The latest sales at Suncadia were at between $400,000 and $750,000 per building site. 

Question: Is unsatiable greed Darland's worst enemy?

Let us recap again:

Based on their investment of approximately $800,00, the Millers suffered a loss of $125,000 when they sold for and received $675,000 for their 50% share of the joint venture.

For my part, I trusted all of Darland's claims regarding his qualifications and ability to turn this project int a multi million dollar one and make us millions each.

So, while I still believed in Darland, I foolishly focussed on the carrot Darland kept dangling in front of me 

That carrot came in different shapes and sizes. For example, from time to time, Darland would send me his wild valuations of the property and coax me to keep my boat tied to his so he could maximize my investment alondside his.

Check out through the link below one such valuation of the property by Darland.

http://snocadia-promoter-michael-l-darland.info/docs/chapter3/19.pdf

In addition to all compelling evidence of Darland's blinding greed above, please Doug do not forget to also offer Darland's marketing publication as an exhibit to the Judges of Washington Supreme Court.

You could even quote some of Darland's statements in that 2007 publication which is still available on Darland's own www.snocadia.com site.

In  that publication some of the representations made by Darland that would be worth citing to the Washington Supreme Court are the following:

"The current owner spent the last four intervening years resolving outstanding legal, water, sewer and access issues..."

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)."

"Predevelopment offering prices in the brochure link are related to single family building envelope pricing at $166,888 per building envelope. Condo envelopes are at a lesser price of $70,000 per envelope, but are available only in clusters of 10 Condo envelopes per cluster. It is envisioned that the condo clusters will be purchased by builders and/or investors who wish to avail themselves of the commercial zoning provisions for rental and fractional ownership sales."

"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.  You may feel free to complete reservation forms.  We will use the information you provide us and contact you when we are again ready to offer reservations."

"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.   Building envelope reservations are offered subject to the Terms and Conditions on this web site. Predevelopment prices now being offered for reserve are:

Single Family building envelope

$166,888

$191,900

Condo envelopes sold in 10 unit clusters

$700,000

$805,300"

At that time Darland did not even own the whole of the property free and clear!

Was Darland possibly putting the cart before the horse when he made those claims to the public?

Was Darland blue skying because he was so eager to sell what he did not own free and clear.

Or was it also because Darland was trying, through that publication to create an impression of horrendous value to help him in his negotiations with Washington State Department of Transportation and Trust for Public Lands?

Darland took chances. Darland lost.

But Darland being Darland, Darland has to always find a scape goat. Any scape goat will do. As long as the scape goats he pursues help Darland slaughter innocent sheep along the way to and through various Court arenas. 

While ignoring his own pride and greed, the more scape goats Darland can find, the more innocent sheep Darland can slaughter, the better Darland feels!

How right is William Popp Sr. of William Popp and associates, Bellevue, when he writes: "Darland will never admit that he is wrong?"

Doug, I am confident that based on all you will be offering to the Washington Supreme Court Judges by way of exhibits, arguments and ideas I have freely shared with you, that panel of learned Judges should get a real taste of who is Michael L. Darland land they should  feel very sorry for such a desperately poor individual.

Through your presentation, those Judges should be compelled to agree with Judge Sparks and with us that, to reach his various blue sky destinations, Darland stepped on a plane bound to nowhere. 

And in nowhere land there will definitely be "no need to have a trial about anything."

To be used in your final closing arguments, if you ever get in front of that panel of learned Judges sitting on Washington Supreme Court benches, I would like to ask you to prepare a declaration for me just like you used to do in the past.

In addition to my declaration, please feel free to also copy this particular blog and offer it as an exhibit in front of your future court arenas.

To help you prepare my declaration I would like you to state the following:

1. Although I am the claimant who paid the assessments in the past.

2. Although I am the one who suffered the loss of a $6 million sale as a result of SPUD's inability to perform.

3. Although I invested well over a million dollar in that project over more than 20 years.

4. Although I have lost it all, no thanks to you, during a 30 minute mock hearing.

5. Although I have been sick for the last ten years suffering from cancer and cardiomyopathy.

6. Although through your past actions, errors and ommissions, coupled with my deteriorating health I have been forced to live far from my 5 children and 26 grand children in order to enjoy totally free healh care, meds included.

I am no cry baby in need to pursue any kind of goat.

I understand that some business decisions are good and some are bad.

Today, after years of fighting Spud and their Saettle attorney Dan Mallove Esq. I learnt through the documents both sides filed in Court  that there were difficulties beyond anyone's direct control at the District.

I lost a lot of money but I am satisfied that the intent of the District, their commissioners and their attorney was not to defraud me. To err is human. 

I only lost money. May I never lose my soul over money.

That understanding allows me today to be joyfully reconciled with and at total peace with the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District.

By contrast, I still very much care not to lose a dime to Darland. Because Darland's main intent to defraud me at the end of the day, was premeditated and, in my opinion, involves outright theft by a cold calculating recidivist assissted by you.

HINDSIGHT:

a. Had I ever thought that the overly seemingly righteous Darland had no intention to deliver my 26 acres to me as part and parcel of the consideration, obviously, I would not have given away my land to him. It was strictly in lieue of that parcel of land that I agreed to receive virtually no cash upfront!

b. Had I not trusted Darland's assurances and loud claims about how qualified he was to add considerable value to the property and make me multi millions down stream, I would most certainly not have sold to him.

c. Had I not believed in the project, I would have obviously insisted being paid upfront, at least $675,000 which is the amount my 50% partner, Miller, walked away with. 

With hindsight, Miller was smart. I was a fool who made a bad business decision. I wanted to see my investment bear fruit rather than walk out of the orchard with no harvest.

With hindsight I can only blame my own stupidity for not doing my own due diligence to find out who I was getting in bed with.

So, accepting responsibility for my short comings, Douglas Warren Nicholson, I am not warring with you or Darland. 

I, simply only firmly believe in what Pope Paul VI said on October 4, 1965 at the United Nations:

"Peace is built up on the four columns of Truth, Justice, Love and Liberty."

Convinced of the above, I will seek peace through justice up to my last breath.

Pope Francis inspires me further when he says: 

"You cannot be in harmony with God if you are not in harmony with your neighbor."

Therefore, Doug, I am working hard on forgiving both Darland and you. When I leave for my final very long distance trip, I will choose to forget behind me the soiled and heavy baggage bearing the tag  'Darland' that you caused me to carry for so long.

Before ending I would like to quote a line from one of Darland's emails to me after he knew that I had cancer and was busy stealing my 26 acres while prematurely hammering nails in my coffin: "I hope you linger on for a long time..."

By the grace of God, I have lingered on for a very long time. I enjoyed using that long lingering time to surrender my sufferings for the salvation of all souls, including yours and mine.

By the grace of God, I hope to be able to sail through my final trip towards the Light, light hearted because I will be in harmony with all. 

That is all.

P.S. Some additional links that you might find useful dear Doug:

http://snocadia-promoter-michael-l-darland.info/?q=-authoritative-documents-