Date: September 19, 2016 Allee Tamarin,
Rodrigues Island,
Via Republic of Mauritius.
R. +230 8321065
e. leclezio@hotmail.com
http://www.lleclezio.blogspot.com
http://snocadia-promoter-michael-l-darland.info
From: Louis Leclezio
To: Mrs. Renee Townsley, Joyce Roberts, Samantha Dressler.
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.
Subject: Case # 340813 - Michael L. Darland et ux v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
Dear Ladies Townsley, Roberts and Dressler,
Please pass on the following to the Honourable Judges.
Dear Honourable Judges,
Is the above case built on rock?
Or
Is the case propped up with unpaid for sticks on shifting sands?
Please find out...
Since 2004 a number of lawyers, including Douglas Warren Nicholson, have stressed that Michael L. Darland has no standing to file any case against the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District.
Two Judges have already confirmed the lawyers' opinion. See exhibits already addressed to you the Honourable Judges - In Judge Cooper's decision of April 29, 2005 reference is made to Leclezio being The plaintiff and the owner who had negotiations with the District and paid the assessments.
Judge Sparks' decision of December 9, 2015 highlights the fact that Michael L. Darland never paid a dime towards the assessments.
Should the Honourable Judges first consider the facts contained in my revised declaration and below before spending time analyzing all case law precedents cited by both attorneys for appellants and defendant.
When crucial information is missing or stories have been made up, how could the Honourable Judges pretend to render justice?
Facts already mentioned as well as facts undisclosed by appellants and their attorney:
Michael L. Darland did not own the subject property at the time the assessments were paid.
Michael L. Darland never had any negotiations with the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District.
Michael L. Darland never paid a dime towards the assessments.
Michael L. Darland purchased the subject property in June 2003.
Michael L. Darland promised, in 2003 to pay for the bundle of sticks attached to the property.
Michael L. Darland, to date has not paid, as promised, for the 'bundle of sticks'.
Michael L. Darland and Myrna Darland are therefore not entitled to any benefit pertaining to any unpaid for stick from the bundle.
How equitable would it be for Michael L. Darland and Myrna Darland to file a claim whereby they are the sole beneficiaries of benefits derived from sticks that have never been paid for by them?
Since last sent, I have revised my sworn declaration.
I have filled the blanks, crossed the t's and dotted the i's to make it more explicit.
I trust and hope that it will prove helpful to the Honourable Judges.
I pray that the Honourable Judges will finally blow away the clouds of smoke that Darlands and Ellensburg attorney Douglas Nicholson have been blowing at Judges and over the head of the Snoqualmie Pass residents for over twelve years.
Thank you for your consideration.
SWORN REVISED DECLARATION OF LOUIS LECLEZIO:
I, Louis Leclezio am the only party, now being intentionally ignored, who had negotiations with the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District. Some of the facts discussed during those negotiations are accurately reported by our then joint attorney, Douglas W. Nicholson, in case # 042004112 in Kittitas County Superior Court.
However, in case no. 340813 in front of the Honourable Judges of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III some assertions made by Darland's attorney, Douglas W. Nicholson concerning my negotiations with the District are unfounded.
I declare under oath and under the penalty of perjury that some of the statements made by attorney Douglas W. Nicholson in the appellants' brief in case # 340813 are ironical. Other representations made by Nicholson are utterly false, totally fabricated, self serving and strictly adapted to suit some of the appellants' opportunistic objectives.
Since neither Nicholson nor Darland were present during any of my negotiations with the District, one must conclude that Nicholson and Darland have a very creative imagination.
Issue: The Property's Access Limitations - Assertions pulled out of thin air?
1. In the last paragraph of page 15 of appellants' brief, attorney Douglas Nicholson refers to a Quit Claim Deed from WSDOT to provide access to the subject property. In the first paragraph of page 16, Nicholson goes on to say that the District failed to construct the required road over the property quit claimed to it by WSDOT.
Why has Nicholson failed to provide to the court any proof or sworn declaration from anyone stating that the District ever agreed to construct the required road over the property quitclaimed to it by WSDOT?
Let it be clear that throughout my negotiations with the District, the District never offered to nor ever agreed to build any road over any of the WSDOT property abutting our 76.8 acres.
Rather, WSDOT, the District, the Millers and I worked on a three party agreement designed to create a win win situation for each and all.
a). The District agreed to help the joint venture of Miller and I to secure the required 60' easement from the WSDOT. The District successfully did just that.
b). WSDOT agreed to grant the 60' easement subject to Miller and I agreeing to construct the required road over the WSDOT property. The WSDOT did just that subject to Miller and I fulfilling our obligation to construct the road over the 60' easement.
c). After all necessary documents pertaining to the 60' easement had been drafted and reviewed by Miller's attorneys Tom Collins and Jeff Cappelleto of Everett, once the deal was set and ready to go, Bruce and Barry Miller refused to follow through with the construction of the required road over the WSDOT property. The whole deal fell through. All the negotiations, traveling, my expenses and all the work put in over many months by Richard Kloss of the District, David Sagar of the WSDOT and myself was lost.
The District acted in good faith and bears no blame for not constructing any road.
Likewise, WSDOT, acted in good faith at all times.
Only the Millers, for reasons of their own, dropped the ball within reach of the goal posts.
Obviously no one at the time could have guessed that the priorities of the WSDOT would change down the road with the advent of new developments along that section of I-90.
Michael L. Darland was fully aware of the above facts before closing the transaction.
After being instructed by Mr. Darland and I, Mr. Nicholson discussed the lack of access to our 76.8 acre property in his January 2005 brief asking for a Partial Summary Judgment from Judge Michael E. Cooper in Kittitas County Superior Court. In the said brief, attorney/officer of the court, Douglas W. Nicholson made no mention of any road to be constructed by the District!
To recap access issue:
In 2003, prior to closing the transaction to acquire the 76.8 acre property on Snoqualmie Pass, Darland claimed that he would be able to solve the access problem.
In 2005, as part of the Settlement Agreement with the District, Darland again maintained that he could and would take care of the required 60' easement problem.
In 2008 according to Darland's web site: www.snocadia.com Darland again claimed that, thanks to his expertise as a seasoned developer, he was solving the access issue.
In 2009, Darland was still convinced that he would and could obtain the required 60' access. Therefore Darland extended the provisions of the Settlement Agreement with the District. Darland did so without my approval and in conflict with our mutual understanding at the time we both signed the settlement agreement with the District in September 2005.
Indeed, in October, 2011, Darland still believed that he could solve the problem. (see p.11 lines 7-18 of the October 11, 2011 Hearing transcript of Darland's Summary Judgment Motion)
Finally in December, 2015, as stated by the Honourable Judge Scott R. Sparks in his December 9 ruling: "Having exhausted their ability to obtain adequate access to this property..." Darland and Nicholson are in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III concocting stories to help them extract funds that they never paid to the District or to me.
Issue: Darlands' Claim of Unjust Enrichment by the District.
1. In the last paragraph of page 27 of his appellants brief, attorney Nicholson states:
"A person has been unjustly enriched when he has profited or enriched himself at another's expense contrary to equity." Cox v. O'Brien.
Who is attorney Douglas W. Nicholson pointing a finger to?
To the District and or to Darland?
1. In June 2003, I conferred a substantial bundle of benefits to Darland.
2. Darland has knowledge of the numerous benefits that he has received from me.
Because Darland has attempted to exploit those benefits beyond reason, Darland has failed. And Darland only has himself, and his attorney Douglas Nicholson to blame for his failures.
Those repeated failures explain why Darland is now, thirteen years after purchasing the dirt, in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III trying desperately to pursue ways of further exploiting the additional benefits that I conferred to him in good faith.
Darland is reaching out for additional benefits although Darland has failed to deliver to me the value that he promised to pay for the bundle of benefits that I trusted him with.
3. Darland has received, accepted and retained the bundle of benefits that I have conferred to him since 2003. As a result of Darland's failures to live up to his promises, the inequitable circumstances prevailing since September 2005, highlight the fact that Darland is still consistently attempting to profit or enrich himself at my expense contrary to equity.
What benefits did Darland receive and what value did Darland pay for the benefits that Darland received, accepted, retained and has endeavored to exploit beyond reason?
Subject to me receiving the full consideration that both Darland and I agreed to:
1. In June 2003, against a token cash payment of $750,000, and much more other deferred consideration, I conferred to Darland the benefit of the 76.8 acre property that I had rezoned from forest range to commercial.
2. Beginning in 2007, acting in bad faith, with absolute disregard of our mutual agreements and without ever paying me a dime over and above the initial token payment of $750,000, Darland actively sought to market the subject property, behind my back, for his sole benefit. At that time, Darland sought to sell the entire property, a portion of which was encumbered by a Quit Claim Deed in my favor, for anything between $14 and $ 57 million! See Darland's marketing web site: www.snocadia.com - How equitable is that?
3. In 2003, I also conferred to Darland, subject to me receiving the additional deferred consideration agreed to, the credit of $492,000 paid 50/50 by Miller and I to the District. Darland is now in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals seeking to exploit that benefit and others without having ever paid a dime to me for any of the additional value that Darland received, accepted and retained. How equitable is that?
4. In 2003, subject to me receiving the additional deferred consideration agreed to, Darland also received the opportunity to sue the District for damages in excess of $6 million. That claim of mine arose from the District's tortious interference with a transaction that I had with Trendwest for $6 million. Darland and I were to split damages collected, if any, as to 2/3rd to Darland and 1/3rd to me per our mutual agreement. Darland agreed to finance all law suits. In 2009, Darland unilaterally elected to drop that claim, to my detriment and to pursue his efforts to solve the access problem. How equitable is that?
5. In 2003, subject to me receiving the additional deferred consideration agreed to, Darland also received the benefit of a stand of a timber stand valued at approximately $600,000 at the time. Yet, to this day Darland has failed to pay any of the additional consideration agreed to by Darland and I. How equitable is that?
6. In 2003, subject to me receiving the additional deferred consideration agreed to, Darland additionally received the benefit of contacts that I had identified and who had expressed an interest in this rare, privately owned, property surrounded mostly by US Forest Service land. Some of those interested parties were ready, willing and able to purchase the property at a price that would have given both Darland and I a handsome profit to be shared as to 2/3rd to Darland and 1/3rd to me per our mutual agreement. Obviously, without Darland ever intending to pay any of the deferred additional consideration that he had promised to pay in the event of a resale of the entire property how equitable was the transaction between Darland and I? Had Darland planned all along how to profit from the fact that I was sick?
7. Between 2003 and 2005 while suffering from cancer, based on my belief that I would receive the additional deferred consideration agreed to, acting in good faith, I conferred to Darland, free of any charge, the benefits of my relentless efforts, my intrinsic knowledge of the property gained over a period of about twenty years, and all the benefits of my prolonged negotiations with the District. Notwithstanding my poor health and regardless of how tiring it would be, I agreed, to give standing to case # 042004112 by joining Darland as an active co plaintiff in the case in Kittitas County Superior Court. In recognition of my literally painful, yet assiduous work, by Darland's side for two years, Darland loaned me a few thousand dollars to be repaid either upon the resale of the property or upon a settlement being reached with the District.
8. In September 2005 my concerted efforts by Darland's side led to Darland and I successfully concluding a Settlement Agreement with the District. Among other benefits, the District granted to Darland and I additional water and sewer hook ups for free! But, although Darland was extremely pleased with that settlement, Darland failed to transfer and record as agreed, any more equitable value to me. How equitable was that?
9. Instead, in February 2006, to unduly enrich himself at my expense and profit from my upcoming cancer surgery, scheduled for March 14, 2006, Darland seized upon that opportunity when I was more fragile and considerably weaker to renege on his agreement to deliver, as promised, any of the additional deferred value. Darland refused to record the Quit Claim Deed for the 26 acres that Darland had already signed over to me and placed in escrow where it remained until October 11, 2011. Per our agreement that acreage represented part of the deferred value to be paid to me by Darland in order for him to be entitled to his bundle of sticks. Without the recordation of that Quit Claim Deed in my name, without the prospect of me ever receiving any of the additional deferred value agreed upon, just how unjust and inequitable was the transaction between Darland and I?
10. Indeed when Darland was deposed by attorney Daniel P. Mallove, Mr. Mallove zeroed in on the excessive disproportion between value received by Darland and cash paid to me amounting only to the initial $750,000 payment. When attorney Mallove asked Darland how could he have equitably and logically apparently paid so little for so much value? Darland answered that he had other agreements with me that would confer much more additional value to me.
11. But Darland has never transferred any of the promised additional value to me. Yet at p.34 of appellants brief, Nicholson is brazen enough to state that: "When Darlands purchased the property, they acquired all ownership rights of their predecessors-in-title." Nicholson knows otherwise, but Nicholson wants the Judges to assume that Darlands paid in full for their purchase. Understandably, Nicholson deliberately conceals from the Judges that Darlands did not pay, as agreed, a dime more than the initial $750,000 that they had paid in June 2003. If that token payment of $750,000 paid by Darlands in June 2003 is applied to pay only partially for the 'dirt' that Darlands were trying to flog off for between $14 and $57 million, then there is obviously nothing left over out of the $750,000 to pay a dime for any stick out of the bundle. If on the other hand attorney Nicholson wants to apply the only $750,000 paid by his client towards the payment of only two of the sticks out of the bundle - namely Assessments valued at $500,000 and timber stand worth $600,000 - then against the only payment of $750,000 - Darland would already have profited to the tune of $350,000. And Darland has stolen the commercially zoned dirt that he tried to actively flog off for between $14 and $57 million. How equitable is that. Moreover when Darland was marketing the entire 'stolen' property, beginning in 2007, 1/3rd of it was encumbered by a Quit Claim Deed in my favor!
12. Acting as an officer of the court, does Nicholson believe that it is lawful for his client to profit and to enrich himself at the expense of others? Does Nicholson believe that he can evoke and apply the principles of equitable dealing selectively? Is the theory of 'unjust enrichment' designed to only protect the interests of Nicholson's clients? Does Nicholson, acting as an officer of the court, truly believe that the role of the court is to assist a recidivist who has already stolen something to steal even more? When Nicholson accuses the District of 'unjust enrichment' does Nicholson feel no shame to focus on the splinter in the District's eye while failing to recognize the beam in his client's eye?
In short, where and when Darland only partially paid for the dirt, but never followed through on his promise to pay for the bundle of sticks, Darland should not be entitled to claim any benefits pertaining thereto.
Throughout the years, Darland has been intent on displaying the same level of unfair dealing and dishonesty to be found now in the brief presented by his attorney Nicholson. Since February 2006, Darland has thrown over board all aspects of fair dealing and just exchange that he pretended to embrace in June 2003.
Once a Settlement Agreement had been reached by both Darland and I with the District, once our joint attorney, Douglas Nicholson had pressured me to sign that agreement, Darland did not need to play by the rules anymore. Darland did not need me as a co plaintiff and as a registered owner of the subject property any longer. So, Darland unilaterally and arbitrarily had me removed from the title to the entire property! How equitable was that? Had Darland planned all along to profit from my deteriorating health and was Darland anticipating my premature death?
Was that the first time Darland had banked on one of his business associates not surviving cancer?
But, against all odds, I unlike others, survived and ten years later, by the Grace of God, The Almighty, I am still alive!!! And whether or not the various documents that I have addressed to Mrs. Townsley for the Judges' attention, can be filed in the records of case # 340813 or not, I am happy to be benevolently offering my crucial valid testimony as 'the' only plaintiff with standing in the case.
I repeat, I am the only owner of the subject property who had negotiations with the District, the only owner who can testify thereto, the owner who paid 50% of the assessments while Miller paid the other half and the only owner who could give standing to case # 042004112 by being a party to it.
Obviously, the fact that I survived my cancer surgery, my chemo therapy treatment and, up to now, my subsequent chronic cardiomyopathy condition did not fit in Darland's plans.
Therefore, in 2011, in order to weasel out of his written and verbal promises to pay fair value, for the considerable bundle of sticks that he had received in 2003, Darland presented a Summary Judgment Motion asking his rubber stamp, judge Michael E. Cooper to grant him, his Summary Judgment.
That motion was based on fiction, coercion and corruption. Nonetheless, regardless of numerous issues of material facts, judge Michael E. Cooper granted the motion, with pleasure, within less than thirty minutes! The granting of that motion to Darland served to strip me of all the deferred benefits that I had relied on in order to sell to Darland the full bundle of sticks in exchange for equitable value to be received by me.
The only arguments that Darland could come up with in his motion for a Summary Judgment were:
1. I was sick and had to go to 'Africa' to get free health care in a desperate effort to survive my cancer. As a result, since I could no longer assist Darland, according to his new set of rules, I should no longer be entitled to an equitable transaction! (Yet Darland knew all along that I was sick and that was why we had provided in our agreements that any deferred value still owed to me by Darland would be passed on to my successors, heirs and assigns.)
2. Since 2006, Darland and his cohorts had treated me as if already dead and voiceless. Darland and his clique had ignored all my emails and all the certified mails that I had sent to them, with my return address clearly visible. Darland had sneered at all the pleas that I had addressed to him to live up to his promises and to deliver the fair value that he had agreed to pay. In the absence of any acknowledgement from Darland and his accomplices, I dared to expose Darland and his gang, including his rubber stamp judge, to the truth across the internet. I wanted the public to know the truth and to be forewarned for their own good before entertaining dealing with Darland. Understandably, the bare truth hurt and embarrassed Darland and his puppets. They did not like that. So, they saw to it that I would be silenced by Cooper who, with pleasure, concurrently, within less than thirty minutes also stripped me of my sacred right to free speech.
3. For laughing out loud, 8 years after Darland and I had completed the transaction, Darland, the expert real estate developer, dreamt up some far fetched allegations of fraud to justify why title to the whole property should be quieted in his name and why I should no longer be entitled to receive my Quit Claim Deed as well as 1/3rd of any and all of the other benefits that would ensue from the 'bundle of sticks' as agreed.
How equitable was that?
How ironical and outrageous is it now for Darland to be hopping from one court room to another hoping to exact a refund, with interest, for assessments that Darland never ever paid a dime for to the District or to me!!!
Indeed, although Darland has, with deliberate bad faith, failed to live up to any of his written and verbal promises to pay additional adequate value for all the benefits that Darland received from me, Darland has the gall:
1. To evoke the theory of unjust enrichment by the District in order to try to justify his various claims, among which his attempt to collect the assessments that Miller and I paid 50/50 to the District and that Darland never ever paid a dime for! (People living in glass houses...)
2. To be seeking a ruling from the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III that would allow Darland to continue to endlessly exploit the various unpaid for benefits that I conferred to him in good faith in 2003. To date, how inequitable has it all proven to be?
In 2016, in front of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division III, is Darland endeavoring to underscore the concept of unjust enrichment?
Is Darland bent on offering the legal world a legal precedent that would by far surpass the reference made to Cox v. O'Brien?
Does Darland want the case Darland v. The District and the Cross Complaint of Leclezio v. Darland to become the new hallmark to be cited as 'the' apotheosis example of Unjust Enrichment?
The decision of the Honourable Judge Sparks on December 9, 2015 should have raised enough red flags for Darland not to look for more sticks, out of any unpaid for bundle, with which to beat himself.
Because I do not want to get any sicker recalling all the hardships that my family and I went through, no thanks to Darland, Nicholson and Cooper and make those reading my declaration sick as well, I shall not be much longer.
The darkness of the immense pain and suffering that my family and I have been put through by Darland, by our joint attorney Douglas W. Nicholson presently of the law firm of Lathrop Winbauer Harrel etc. of Ellensburg and by judge Michael E. Cooper should shed much light on the fact that we could never be restored to our prior position just by collecting dollars from anyone or all of them.
Moreover, if the damages we have suffered through many years could be measured in terms of dollars only, Darland et al would never have enough dollars to satisfy my family and I, even if ordered by the Court to attempt to restore us to our prior positions!
So, my family and I choose to leave restoration and compensation to God's Divine Providence, to His Infinite Wisdom, to His all encompassing ultimate Eternal Justice and to His generous Mercy for all.
In our better moments, we have even learnt to praise God for each and every time we have been hurt and have been diminished in the eyes of the world by Darland, Nicholson and Cooper.
Bit by bit, as we have had to do away with some of the, taken for granted, comforts of life, we have turned to God more and more and we have found joy in exalting Him. We thank Him for stripping us of all vanity and clothing us with much desired and rewarding humility.
We have further learnt from God that the compassion we are called to show to all our brothers in need finds its source in the Godly strength of our perceived weaknesses. That strength empowers us to pity and pray for all those who endlessly believe that more money will finally make them happy even if only for a very short time in this world.
The fact that I am still alive confirms my well placed trust in the awesome power of prayer.
The fact that I cannot hire an attorney to present an amicus curiae brief on my behalf makes me turn to the power of prayer.
The fact that I am empowered to benevolently devote my very limited energy to the cause of justice for all makes me most grateful for the power of prayer.
Seeing that above all, I believe in the power of prayer, please let me know the time and the date of the hearing. If, by the grace of God, I am still alive then, at the scheduled hearing time I want to be praying for God's Justice to prevail for the ultimate better good of all for eternity.
Sworn to by me, Louis Leclezio on this 19th day of September 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment