Date: January 6, 2017
From: Louis Leclezio
To: 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;
Cc. 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, Douglas War Nicholson.
The Honourable Judges appear to face an obvious paradox after the 13:30 hearing held on December 6, 2016 in Wenatchee.
One month after the above hearing, the dilemma faced by the Judges is ever clearer and challenging.
On the one hand Michael L. Darland claims that the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District did not fulfill its agreement with Leclezio.
Therefore Darland seeks, for his sole benefit, a refund of all moneys paid by Leclezio/Miller together with statutory interest thereon.
In the brief presented by Ellensburg attorney, Douglas W. Nicholson, Darland suggests that the District is guilty of unfair enrichment and is profiting at Leclezio's expense. The Leclezio/Miller joint venture had paid the District $492,000 but had received no special benefits according to Darland.
On the other hand, the paradox is that Darland, likewise, has never fulfilled the terms of his agreement with Leclezio.
Darland has failed to date to transfer to Leclezio the additional benefits that Darland still owes to Leclezio for that portion of the total value that Darland received from Leclezio and thereafter retained. That is the $492,000 paid by Leclezio/Miller to the District in assessments decades ago!
How could the Honourable Judges on the one hand condemn and penalize the District for profiting and enriching itself at Leclezio's expense and award all benefits supposed to flow from Leclezio/Miller's payments to Darland?
When on the other hand, through such an award, the Honourable Judges would be tacitly condoning and rewarding Darland for having acted towards Leclezio in the same manner that Darland claims the District should not be allowed to get away with.
Since Darland has never paid a dime to either Leclezio or to the District for the benefit that he is claiming, is Darland not seeking to enrich himself at both Leclezio's and at the District's expense?
Is enriching oneself at the expense of another not the very same outrageous action that Darland claims that the Honourable Judges of the State of Washington Court of Appeals Division III should preclude the District from doing?
How could one party (The District) be penalized for supposedly enriching itself at the expense of Leclezio while simultaneously another party (Darland) would be rewarded for doing exactly the same thing?
I humbly wish the Honourable Judges the ability to display the wisdom of Solomon as I look forward to their ruling,
No comments:
Post a Comment