Letter sent by Leclezio to his personal attorney, Brian J. Dorsey referencing Darlands constantly changing versions under oath!!!

Dear Brian, In line with my mail of yesterday re Hammering Darland with the perjury aspect Here are some flagrant instances thereof in chronological order. Please highlight them as best you can It will work... And save us a lot more heart ache with that bastard. No need to argue that they will not hold any water in Court... Suffice to know that hammering the point will serve to DROWN DARLAND... In October 2003 a Settlement Agreement was proposed to SPUD. It states: This AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District (hereinafter District), and Michael Darland and Louie Leclezio (hereinafter Owner) pursuant to which the parties agree as follows: Yet on August 26, 2010, in Darlands answers to Leclezios Cross Claim, Darland claimed under penalty of Perjury that the only owners of the 76 acres are Michael & Myrna Darland! (viz. 3.5 & 6.2 of Darlands answer and Counter Claim) On Thursday January 13, 2005 Darland sent a Draft of Settlement to Leclezio In it Darland states: WHEREAS the DISTRICT has steadfastly refused to honor and deliver on its commitments to provide 230 water and sewer hookups to the 76-acre property and in so doing has caused immense financial damage to Louis Leclezio and his business partners, Michael L. and Myrna Darland (PLAINTIFFS) On Friday January 14, 2005, Darland sent a Document under the title of: Draft Document for Demands to: Kim Bailes (kbailes@eburglaw.com) with a copy to Leclezio In it Darland repeats: WHEREAS the DISTRICT has steadfastly refused to honor and deliver on its commitments to provide 230 water and sewer hookups to the 76-acre property and in so doing has caused immense financial damage to Louis Leclezio and his business partners, Michael L. and Myrna Darland (PLAINTIFFS)

Please check if Doug submitted that language as drafted by Darland to the Court and when?
Yet on August 26, 2010, in Darlands answers to Leclezios Cross Claim, Darland denied under penalty of Perjury that the Darlands and Leclezio are business partners! (viz. 3.3) On Friday January 21, 2005, Michael Darland sent a mail to Doug Nicholson and Kim Bailes with a copy to Leclezio.

In it Darland states: Here are my comments hot off the press concerning the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: I. INTRODUCTION A. The Parties. Plaintiffs, Michael and Myrna Darland ("Darland") and Louis Leclezio ("Leclezio"), are the owners of approximately 76.8 acres of unimproved real property ("the Property") situated east of Snoqualmie Pass in Upper Kittitas County. The Property abuts Mt. Grandeur, and includes a portion of Gold Creek. The Property consists of four separate, contiguous tax parcels (Parcel Nos. 22-11-150100001, 22-11-15010-0003, 22-11-15010-0004, and 22-11-15010-0005). On Monday January 24, 2005 at 10:41AM Michael Darland again sent a mail to Doug Nicholson and Kim Bailes with a copy to Leclezio. The Subject is: Revisions by Leclezio and Darland to the Summary Judgment. Under the Introduction Darland confirms and authorizes Nicholson to file with the Kittitas County Superior Court the following representation under penalty of perjury:

Plaintiffs, Michael and Myrna Darland ("Darland") and Louis Leclezio ("Leclezio"), are the owners of approximately 76.8 acres of unimproved real property ("the Property") situated east of Snoqualmie Pass in Upper Kittitas County. The Property abuts Mt. Grandeur, and includes a portion of Gold Creek. The Property consists of four separate, contiguous tax parcels (Parcel Nos. 22-11-150100001, 22-11-15010-0003, 22-11-15010-0004, and 22-11-15010-0005). Yet on August 26, 2010, in Darlands answers to Leclezios Cross Claim, Darland claimed under penalty of Perjury that the only owners of the 76 acres are Michael & Myrna Darland! (viz. 3.5 & 6.2 of Darlands answer and Counter Claim)

You could highlight that Judge Cooper relied on representations made in our Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in his Court, under penalty of perjury, to find as an uncontroverted fact that Darlands and Leclezio are the owners of 76 acres ( See Judge Coopers Memorandum Decision dated April 29, 2005) It is preposterous and criminal for Darlands to now claim in front of the same Judge in the same case that Darlands are the sole owners of the Darland Property! How ludicrous Put that bastard in jail for perjury In another instance, on November 2, 2009 in a letter Darland sent to Ms Cote, subject: EIS Requirements, Darland emphatically claims:

I will have certificates of availability at the time necessary to develop the lots Yet on August 26, 2010, in Darlands answers to Leclezios Cross Claim, Darland asserted under penalty of Perjury that: Performance under the Settlement Agreement was impossible & The water and sewer connections even if issued by SPUD, are not and cannot be immediately available and appurtenant to the Darland property (viz. 6.8 & 6.11) There are numerous other gross conflicting statements made by Darland in different forums. I know that I have already provided you with all of the above This is the skinny to jog your memory and save you much researching time in order to nail that bastard with charges of perjury. Even if we could not nail him, just the fear of facing perjury once again will bring Darland down to his knees. This time Darland cannot run to Chile or to secure funds from a public company to save his neck. Most sincerely, Louis.