This was a significant conflict of interest that Fletcher and the other Ninth Circuit judges hide in their decisions. Fletcher and Rothstein irrationally and illegally establish Hilchkanum as author of his deed.
Guide to Manuscript Materials : Original Materials - Pt. B
They claim Hilchkanum was assisted with the writing by his white friends. But then they refuse to admit that help would have come from one of the owners of the Railway, D. These dishonest judges manufacture some facts and cherry pick other facts in order to justify their predetermined outcome to the lawsuit. Facts are resolved before a jury in a legitimate court of law. Fletcher and Rothstein would now allow my right to a jury in their private courts. View the full transcribed Hilchkanum deed with a photocopy of the filed original.
Fletcher changes the words of the deed and then analyzes her substituted words.
Later in this decision, Judge Fletcher states that the Hilchkanums conveyed a "'strip' of land" to the Railway. This would be a good chance to look at the Hilchkanum granting clause, above, and see what was actually conveyed. One can see that the Hilchkanums conveyed a "right of way". So, why would Fletcher state that a "strip of land" was conveyed? The answer to that question is held in over one hundred years of consistently applied common law. Federal Judge Fletcher didn't want the grant to be an easement, so she changed the words of this deed when she analyzed its language.
Judge Fletcher's adoption of this dishonest legal argument signals her cooperation with the King County Prosecutor in his attempt to hide his crime. Fletcher's adoption of Norm Maleng's "legal theory" is a criminal act from the bench.
"Pulsars: Three States of a Single Poem" by Harry Lewis, 1974
Fletcher could not find the clearly stated purpose of the deed. Judge Fletcher not only determined that a "'strip' of land" was conveyed, but she stated that there was no railroad or right-of-way purpose in the deed. The Hilchkanum granting clause conveyed a "right of way" to a railroad, yet Fletcher could find no purpose in the deed to convey a right-of-way to a railroad.
So, why would Fletcher state that she could find no railroad or right-of-way purpose in the Hilchkanum deed? Again, the answer to that question is held in over one hundred years of consistently applied common law. Federal Judge Fletcher didn't want the grant to be an easement, so she irrationally stated that there was no railroad or right-of-way purpose in the Hilchkanum grant. The fact that Judge Fletcher could find no railroad or right-of-way purpose becomes even more ridiculous when one reads the next paragraph in her opinion.
There she cites a subsequent Hilchkanum deed: "Bill Hilchkanum then conveyed the property to a third party 'less three 3 acres heretofore conveyed to the Seattle International Railway for right of way purposes.
Fletcher (Ed) Papers
Since Fletcher bases this opinion on cherry-picked extrinsic evidence, how completely dishonest for her to cite this subsequent deed language and then state later in this decision that she could find no evidence of Hilchkanum's intention to grant the deed for railroad right-of-way purposes. Fletcher contradicts herself with her own written words. Does Fletcher even read her own citations? By law and the Constitution, Fletcher was required to send this lawsuit back to federal district court to have the disputed facts resolved before a jury.
Fletcher refused to do this because it would have exposed the criminal actions of her sister judge, Barbara Rothstein, and the other participants in the ELS federal tax fraud scheme. View the full Hilchkanum right-of-way deed. Mary Hilchkanum later conveyed lots 1 and 3 of the homestead property to her husband by quitclaim deed. The conveyance is "less 3 acres right of way of Rail Road. The Rasmussens claim that the right of way bisects portions of lots 2, 3, and 5.
None of the land that is the subject of this lawsuit is on Government Lot 1. So, why does Fletcher concentrate of the subsequent transfer of land that is not the subject of this lawsuit? Well, the answer will come later in this decision where Fletcher analyzes the effect of this exception language and misstates the common law precedent. Further, Judge Fletcher later implies the exception language associated with the subsequent transfer of Government Lot 1 was the rule , and the deeds lacking that exception language provide not "a scintilla of evidence" to counter her rule.
The truth is that a number of more relevant subsequent Hilchkanum deeds were presented to Judge Fletcher as exhibits. Only some of those deeds exempted the right of way.
The most relevant subsequent deeds did not exempted the right of way. The Hilchkanum's intentions in their subsequent deeds is a material fact that must be resolved before a jury. Judge Fletcher does not have the right to hide some facts and miss-emphasize other facts in order to color the intentions of the Hilchkanums.
Instead of allowing a jury to decide the relevant facts, Fletcher "went shopping" through less relevant extrinsic evidence for a subsequent Hilchkanum deed that she then wrongly construed to support her ridiculous contrived fact that an illiterate Duwamish Indian wrote his own deed to the railroad in , and intended to convey unrestricted fee simple title. She ignores the deeds that lack this exception language because they destroy her argument. She then misapplies the law in the interpretation of exemption language, using her "cherry-picked" extrinsic evidence. Open the section of this opinion which discusses this manipulation of the extrinsic evidence, in detail.
There were three deeds that conveyed the land construed in this lawsuit to outside parties. These are the deeds most relevant to this lawsuit. Select the hyperlinks, directly below, to confirm that none of these deeds excepted the right-of-way or the land under the right-of-way. The questions that Fletcher would not allow to go to a jury: What did these words excepting a right-of-way mean to the parties in those early days? Why is Hilchkanum inconsistent with this exception language in his subsequent deeds, including it in some, and not in others?
Did Hilchkanum have adequate legal experience, or advice, to protect his interests in the execution of these deeds, considering the fact that he was an illiterate American Indian?
- How To Be A GhostWriter - 2nd edition!
- The Complete Smoking Diaries!
- Maestros de alma (Spanish Edition).
- Miss Gordons Mistake.
- The Glasgow Book of Days.
- Bacteria in Agrobiology: Crop Ecosystems.
- Petroleum Reservoir Rock and Fluid Properties.
The answer to these questions strongly color the material fact that is Hilchkanum's intentions with these deeds. Fletcher, Rothstein, and the other Ninth Circuit judges denied my constitutional right to establish the material facts that control the outcome this case. Honestly answering those important questions would not support Rothstein's and Fletcher's dishonestly contrived material facts and "legal" conclusions.
This manipulation of the material facts and the law was made possible because of the illegal application of summary judgment. The misapplication of summary judgment is a critical element in this dishonest decision and was discussed in more detail at the beginning of this annotated opinion. Open the section of this opinion which discusses Fletcher's illegal use of summary judgment, in detail. View a study of the common law understanding of the exception of a right-of-way in a deed.
Lee Family Papers
The Railway, and its successor Burlington Northern, built a track on the strip of land and used the track regularly for rail service until approximately The County then purchased the corridor from the TLC and obtained title to the right of way carved from the Hilchkanum property. The Rasmussens oppose King County's efforts to railbank the right of way and claim that King County has no right to use the right of way as a trail because the Railway and its successors held only an easement for railroad purposes.
As a result, King County brought this action in state court to quiet title and to obtain a declaration of its rights in the strip. The Rasmussens removed the action to federal court and counterclaimed with allegations that King County violated their First, Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and violated 16 U. King County moved for summary judgment on its claim to the property and moved to dismiss the Rasmussens' counterclaims for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In response to these motions, the Rasmussens filed two over-length briefs and a declaration from Mr. Rasmussen containing several additional pages of legal argument. King County filed its reply and moved to strike the overlength portions of the Rasmussens' briefs and the legal arguments in Mr. Rasmussen's declaration. They also moved to strike inadmissible evidence from the briefs and the declaration. The Rasmussens filed a brief in response to King County's motion to strike as well as a separate surrebuttal brief.
King County moved to strike the surrebuttal brief. In a published opinion, the district court struck the overlength portions of the Rasmussens' response brief as well as the legal arguments in Mr. See King County v. Rasmussen , F. It also struck a paragraph in the response brief that indicated that Bill Hilchkanum was a Native American and was illiterate; the Rasmussens cited no evidence in support of this assertion in their brief to the district court. The district court also agreed to strike the surrebuttal brief.
- Creativity and Cultural Production: Issues for Media Practice.
- Archives Directory for the History of Collecting in America;
- The Infamous Ego?
- Deborah Barry (Author of The Community Forests of Mexico)?
- 1. Example Searches;
- Soins infirmiers et gestion des risques - Soins éducatifs et préventifs - Qualité des soins et évaluation des pratiques: Unités denseignement 4.5, 4.6 et 4.8 (French Edition)?
- Florida Century Pioneer Family Farms - Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services?
- Manuscript Collection | The State Historical Society of Missouri.
- A. ACCESSIONS?
- The Journey of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca (CryptoQuest Reprint Series).
- Table of Contents.
- Ciudadania Americana ¡Hecho fácil! (Enhanced Edition) (Hecho facil) (Spanish Edition)?
Finally, it granted King County's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the counterclaims. The Rasmussens appeal. Use this menu to jump to that subject. The striking of our argument and exhibits is one of several steps Judges Fletcher and Rothstein took to deny my right to present my case in "their" federal court.
First, District Judge Rothstein reneged on her clerks agreement for extend briefs and struck all briefing beyond the 24 page limit. This striking of our briefing, after her clerk agreed to an informal procedure on her behalf, is a denial of my right of due process. In this appeal, the panel supports Rothstein's striking of this argument. Second, in federal district court, Rothstein refused our many requests for oral arguments. While there were oral arguments associated with this appeal, they were very brief and there was no discussion of the issues critical to the lawsuit.
Third, in her ruling, District Judge Rothstein struck twelve of my fourteen exhibits, and about seven pages of my twenty page declaration. Approximately three hundred pages of my exhibits were reduced to eight pages by her various rulings to strike. The validity of the information in any of those struck pages was never questioned. That information is correct.