6a Michael L. Darland Answers to Interrogatory 052905

Comment: Responses Darland submitted to Doug for corrections and additions on 05/29/05.

In his version of answers, Darland sets himself up as such an expert that he has no need to rely on anyone to make smart calculated decisions. Besides Darland represents himself as highly qualified: “I, among other things have a graduate degree in urban and regional planning.”

By contrast, I, only have a high school certificate, English is not my mother tongue. As Doug assured me, if Darland created ambiguity in the MOU Darland drafted, any ambiguity will be construed against Darland.

If you want, I can forward both Darland’s and Doug’s original ‘2005’ mail to you!

Response to Interrogatories and Requests for Production SPUD

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

My Name is Michael L. Darland, Date of Birth is May 30, 1942Soc. Sec. Nº is 509-36-1542Residence for last 10 years is 2021 102PL SE Bellevue, WA 98004

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:I have been retired since 1995 and prior to that I worked for Digital Systems International (DSI) between 1979 and 1995. DSI was a public company with national and international sales and offices, which developed large, scale hardware and software systems. I was a co-founder of the company in 1979 and held the titles of President, CEO and Chairman of the Board.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:To the best of my recollection, other than Louis Leclezio, my Attorney and my wife Myrna Darland, Plaintiff, there are no other persons who would fit the description set forth in this interrogatory.


Other than Mr. Leclezio and my wife who signed the paperwork, I do not recollect any other person who would fit the description set forth in this interrogatory.


To the best of my recollection, the only documents the fit the description of this interrogatory are the titles that were processed by the title company and the escrow agent to complete the purchase transaction, a quit-claim deed filed with the Escrow agent, and documents, regarding the property, which may be in the possession of Mr. Leclezio.

of 12Response to Interrogatories and Requests for Production SPUD

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Nº 1.

My response to this request is covered in INTERROGATORY NO. 5


To the best of my recollection the list below identifies the properties which are requested in this INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

80 acres of waterfront property on Lago Rivadavia, in Cholia, Argentina. Approximate date of purchase, 1996. I do not have access to the information on data of the seller as requested. There is no specific address other than the northern 1. 5 miles of lake front on

Lago Rivadavia and bounded on the north by 1/2 mile of riverfront on the Rio Cartaleyafu.

The terms of the transaction were cash payment. I had a lawyer inspect the title work on the property to assure me that the seller

was the owner and that the property was free and clear. I made a visual inspection of the property.

3,200 acres of land with over a mile of waterfront on Lago Rosselot on the southern boundary and several miles of riverfront on Rio Figueroa on its eastern boundary near La Junta, Chile.

Approximate date of purchase 1998 I do not have access to the information on data of the seller as requested There is no specific address other than the western boundary of the property

begins 26 kilometers from Highway 5 on the road to Lago Verde and that it is in the 11th Region of Chile and the community of La Junta.

The terms of the transaction were cash payment I had a lawyer inspect the title work on the property to assure me that the seller


400 plus acres of land lying north of the Rio Pico with approximately 1/2 mile of frontage forming the southern boundary of the property and the Rio Frio forming the Western boundary, near Lago Verde, Chile.

Approximate date of purchase 2002 I do not have access to the information on data of the seller as requested There is no specific address other than the boundaries with the know rivers

mentioned above. It is in the 11th Region of Chile and in the community of Lago Verde.

The terms of the transaction were cash payment I had a lawyer inspect the title work on the property to assure me that the seller



I purchased three plus miles of river frontage on the Rio Pico including several hundred acres of land, which are a part of the river frontage.

Approximate date of purchase 2002 I do not have access to the information on data of the seller as requested There is no specific address other than the boundaries with the know rivers

mentioned above. It is in the 11th Region of Chile and in the community of Lago Verde.

The terms of the transaction were a 5-year lease of the property with all lease payments converts into a sale of the land at the end of the 5-year term.

I had a lawyer inspect the title work on the property to assure me that the seller was the owner and that the property was free and clear. I made a visual inspection of the property.

Six plus acres of residential zoned property in Redmond WA. Approximate date of acquisition 1995 I obtained the property from Don Lewison, Evergreen Management, 1720 –130th

Ave. NE Bellevue WA. 98005. Telephone 425.454-6396 The address is 19430 NE 50th Street Redmond WA. The property was forfeited to me in partial payment of a cash loan made by me to

Mr. Lewison. I made a visual inspection of the property before accepting it as a partial payment

for the loan.

Seventy Six Acre commercially zoned acreage near exit 54 of the Interstate 5 highway near the summit of Snoqualmie Pass, located in Kittitas County WA

This is the property, which has been identified in the lawsuit as to location. Approximate date of acquisition June, 2003 I purchased the property from Miller Shingle who, together with Louis Leclezio,

owned the property. The terms of the purchase were cash in full. I issued a quitclaim deed to Mr.

Leclezio for 26 acres of the property, which is to be released to him upon agreement from the SPUD that the water and sewer hookups for the property for which he and his prior associated paid the SPUD will be delivered to the property boundaries.

I made a visual inspection of the property and verified, at the time of sale, that Miller Shingle had the right to convey the property to me and to my wife Myrna.

I continue to be the owner of all of the above-mentioned properties.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Nº 2:I do not understand what documents are being requested here as there were no agreements other than the payments made. ???



Yes. I have been involved in the development of two lodges, which I own through Darland Enterprises, S.A. and Southern Chile Expeditions, S.A. The two applicable projects are Yan Kee Way Lodge and El Patagon Lodge.

There are no other persons involved in Yan Kee Way Lodge It is located at Km. 42 Camino a Ensenada, Ensenada, Comuna de Puerto

Varas, Region X. Chile. I am the owner of this property through the above-mentioned corporations. Construction began 1993 and there are expansion projects underway as of this

writing. Any and all documents related to this project are located in Ensenada Chile in

the administrative offices of Yan Kee Way Lodge and in the Notary Public office of Puerto Varas as may be applicable.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Nº 3

This request as it applies to Yan Kee Way Lodge is too general given the number papers of papers that may be applicable to your request and which have been developed since 1992 since I purchased this property. I hereby give you and or your agents full and unconditional permission to inspect any and all documents, which may be located on the premises of Yan Kee Way lodge, and to identify those, which you require, and to copy same.

This request as it applies to El Patagon Lodge is too general given the number papers of papers that may be applicable to your request and which have been developed since 1998 since I purchased this property. I hereby give you and or your agents full and unconditional permission to inspect any and all documents, which may be located on the premises of Yan Kee Way and El Patagon lodges, and to identify those, which you require, and to copy same.

INTERROGATORY Nº 8

I brought suit against a party who contracted our services and did not pay the bill for services rendered.

I was a plaintiff together with my brother Stephen A. Darland in lawsuit against Donald L. Snellman and his company (2807 W. Galer St., Seattle, WA 98199) of which I cannot recall the name. My attorney was Richard Foreman of Diamond Sylvester.

The lawsuit was located in Seattle, WA I do not recall the exact date nor do I have any paperwork to assist my

recollection but it was somewhere between 1975 and 1978 to the best of my recollection.


We sued Mr. Snellman for his failure to pay a bill, which amounted to approximately $15,000, for our services.

My brother Stephen’s address is P.O. Box 2 Monticello, NM 87939 and his telephone number is (505) 743-0200.

We the jury awarded us payment of over $34,000 based on quantum meruit decision.

I was named, along with my company Digital Systems International, as a defendant in class action lawsuit, which was brought by Stephen Berman and his law firm.

The lawsuit was located in Seattle in the Federal Court. I do not recall the exact date nor do I have any paperwork to assist my

recollection but it was somewhere in the time period 1990 - 1991 This was a class action strike suit, which was brought under statues that no longer

exist nor are legal to bring. Our law firm was Perkins Coie and I do not recall the name of our lawyers.

Comment: ( This is a chapter of Darland’s life that he never wants to be brought up) Darland will settle with us for 2 reasons; a) the preponderance of evidence and the truth in our favor; b) We press Darland to recall numerous facts concerning this suit where he committed perjury!

Who would believe that Darland could forget the name of a lawyer who saved him from perjury by recommending an eight million dollar settlement in exchange for the Court to seal the file!

We were advised by our law firm to settle the suit, which we did for an amount of around $8,000,000 paid, in large measure, by our insurance company.

I had my company Digital Systems International bring a lawsuit against one of our competitors, Melita Systems, for business disparagement.

The lawsuit was brought in Federal Court in Seattle, WA I do not recall the exact date but believe that it was during the period 1993-1994 The defendant company Melita both in written and verbal form, over a period of

years, brought misleading claims and misinformation regarding our company products to our business prospects. I provided Melita written warning over a two-year period that we would sue them if they continued this practice. They did not cease and desist this practice and thus we sued them.

Our law firm was Perkins Coie and I do not recall the names of our legal representatives from that firm.

The jury on that case awarded us damages of $4.84 million in cash.

I am currently involved in litigation in Santa Fe, NM. I am the trustee of my father and mother’s Trust and brought suit again, together

with one of the heirs, Amy Darland, daughter of my brother Stephen A. Darland. This suit was filed in mid-2004.


I brought a lawsuit against my brother and sister, Stanley E. Darland and Vikki S. Darland, for having taken approximately $1.5 million dollars from my mother in the form of loans, which they did not and will not repay the estate. At least $1.09 million of these funds were from the irrevocable trust of my father, which had an initial value, in 1990, of $1.09 million dollars.

My law firm is Modrall, Sperling, Roehl Harris & Sisk, PA of Albuquerque NM and my attorney is Patrick J. Rodgers. His address is P.O. Box 2168, Bank of America Center, Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168. His phone number is (505) 848-1800. I do not have current address and phone numbers for Stanley and Vikki Darland.

The lawsuit is in process. The judge has ruled, on a Preliminary Summary Judgment that Stanley and Vikki Darland have received funds from a Trust that was illegally invaded to make them those loans and that they are responsible for any IRS and State Taxes for forgiven debts and gift taxes that may accrue. We continue to seek, once in trial, repayment of all loans to the estate made to Stanley and Vikki Darland. I am not an heir in this Trust but am solely the Trustee

INTERROGATORY Nº 9

Prior to the purchase, I made the decision to purchase this property in the period of approximately 4 or 5 days from the time that I learned of it. Thus, other than the verbal representations of Louis Leclezio and the site visit that I made during one of those days previous to the purchase, there were not any documents (Comment: False; Mike asked for, got and inspected numerous docs) available on which to make the decision. 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.

Following the purchase, I participated with Louie Leclezio and Bryan (?), attorney in a document search in the offices of the SPUD. I cannot recall of the documents that I saw during that search, but they were a substantial number.


All documents that would fit this description of pre-sale documents,would be in the possession of Louis Leclezio.

INTERROGATORY Nº 10

I did not use nor did I require any assistance in making the decision 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 location and


potential to appreciate, given the proper conditions. I purchase raw land. I also, based on its location, zoning, other nearby developments, and what appeared to be, based on verbal representations of payments approximating $500,000 to the Kitsap Treasurer on behalf of the SPUD for water and sewer connections, believed that it had substantial value.

In Darland’s deposition, you will find that Darland makes similar assertions about substantial value.

That caused Mallove to ask Darland how could he have bought it so cheap then. Darland replied that he had other arrangements with me.

Darland’s answers in his Dep will show that at that time in 2005, neither Doug, nor Darland had any problem correctly interpreting our agreements or suggested any “seller’s misrepresentations.


I have lost the ability to proceed with decisions to develop the property in accord with its zoning due to the uncertainty of the District’s willingness and ability to deliver the paid for water and sewer services. Mr. Lanihan directly told me that it was not certain that, even if I applied for the water and sewer, that the District would grant them. He told me that the only certain benefit that I (the property) had received for the money ( I by then had seen the receipts) was the building (SPUD headquarters) that I was standing in.

I could not advertise or offer the property for sale to others given that I could not certify that it had the water and sewer service necessary to service the property as low intensity development potential or for the more intense development which the zoning on the property would allow.

In 2007, Darland claims that he has resolved all issues. The above statement in Darland’s answers must no longer hold true. Thus Darland markets the property on the internet and also through at least one realtor I know!

I agreed to assist Mr. Leclezio with his legal claims against the District and have had to spend funds in legal contests to obtain what was already paid for and promised by the District.

No mention of “seller’s misrepresentations there!

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.(Comment: Greed is Darland’s worst enemy. Let us hammer him with that.)

Other losses are too early to calculate and we have not employed any experts to supplement our own experience and judgment paired with comparables selling nearby.


At this juncture, other than legal bills incurred due to the lack of performance on the part of the district, the losses mentioned in response to Interrogatory Nº 11, and the cost of money, we have been prudent in hold our costs down for what we would otherwise have been doing to put this project underway.


YOUR HELP HERE PLEASE DOUG





























I have not yet had any conversations with other property owners.


Mr. Leclezio has first hand knowledge of this matter.


See Mr. Leclezio’s responses to this matter.


NO!! As mentioned above, the actions on the part of the SPUD leave me in the position

of not being able to offer the property for sale given the uncertainties introduced into the matter by the failure of the SPUD to deliver the water and Sewer service


paid for. (Comment: Having made this sworn representation in 2005, and subsequently marketing the property in 2008, Darland apparently no longer has a problem about offering the property for sale behind my back! Indeed, to make such a blatant statement about resolving all issues, Darland must have truly accepted the benefits of the Settlement Agreement with SPUD. The Court must rule that Darland has to create the new 26 acre tax lot and record the Quit Claim Deed in our favor.)


See response to Nº 21 above.


There are no such circumstances nor are there any such documents.


There have been no such appraisals nor are there any such documents.


No.


No expert witnesses have yet been identified


See response to INTERROGATORY Nº 24


See response to INTERROGATORY Nº 24


See the responses in previous INTERROGATORIES which address the subject of damages and the fact that the denial of water and sewer services precludes any actions on our part due to the necessity of litigation to obtain rights to water and sewer that have been paid for.

At the moment we have been granted water and sewer service and can begin to put realistic timelines on delivery of building lots for sale, we will then be able to provide you with such information. The fact that we are in what some have termed a “bubble” regarding land and housing sales, and that the SPUD’s actions have precluded our placing


our land up for sale during this economic upswing can be calculated, but only at such time that the uncertainty caused by SPUD’s actions has ceased and a benchmark time period for calculation of damages exists. At the moment, there is a moving continuum during which damages are being accrued and there is not a fixed period to examine until the denial of our rights is ceased. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Nº 17

See answer above to INTERROGATORY Nº 26


The only documents, which might fit this description, are those shared with my attorney and Mr. Leclezio.




I have not been a party to any such activities. Mr. Leclezio or my attorney may have information related to your questions.




Doug I need your assistance on this one.


Doug I need your assistance on this one.


I have no such documents to produce.

INTERROGATORY Nº 31 To the best of my recollection there are no such documents of the nature

described for which I would have need to identify along the lines requested.


To the best of my recollection, no documents existed that were destroyed that would apply in any way, shape or form to any element of this mater that have left my possession or that would no longer be available to me if they had existed in the first place.

In instances above where I have mentioned that I no longer have any documents relating to the questions about the general history of my life, or to the last 10 years of my life or to intervening periods of my life, I refer, in general to documents that may have existed or, that had they existed, that may have been applicable to the requests or that may have been discarded in the normal and continuing process of discarding documents that are no longer relevant to my life or to my business. I have no specific memory of any specific documents which might have existed but are no longer in my possession due to the lack of the necessity of their being so. To the best of my recollection I do not recollect any specific documents, which would fit this description.

Comment: Michael never gets rid of anything. But conveniently, he seeks to bury the chapters that expose most contentious aspects of his life. In order to establish Darland’s true profile, we must press Darland to disclose that particular chapter of his life relating to his perjury. That will ensure that he caves in and settles.


6a Michael L. Darland Answers to Interrogatory 052905

Documents

Transcript of 6a Michael L. Darland Answers to Interrogatory 052905