"Notice of Non-Consent to Quasi-Governmental Jurisdiction and Reservation of Rights "

Case No. 26-2-01443-4SEA

Shane Lozenich vs The State of Washington

Cause:

Quiet Title

Filing Date:

01/08/2026

Judge:

Karen Matson Donohue

Status:

Trial 01/11/2027

Executive Summary and Legal Disposition

The legal matter of Shane Lozenich vs. The City of Seattle (Case No. 26-2-01443-4 SEA) is a Quiet Title action filed on January 8, 2026, serves as a primary petition for the recognition of the Seattle-Bremerton Majorat, a hereditary estate and sovereign security corridor. Presided over in King County Superior Court, the case originated from a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and to Quiet Title filed on January 8, 2026. The petitioner seeks a judicial determination of his rights as legal heir to the Majorat and the enforcement of restrictive covenants that purportedly limit external governmental jurisdiction within the designated area. The petition positions this legal action as a "corrective instrument" intended to resolve systemic failures, including due process breakdowns and the inability of domestic institutions to address technologically facilitated harm. Ultimately, the action serves as a challenge to the legitimacy of the judicial system, requiring the court to establish its lawful foundation regarding the administration of the designated territory.

Contact Information

King County Superior Courts

516 Third Ave

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 477-1400

Judge Karen Matson Donohue E863

karen.donohue@kingcounty.gov

(206) 477-3720 (office)

Anthony Chevez

Deputy Assistant Inspector General

anthony.h.chevez@us.navy.mil

(360) 340-7292 (cell)

Case Documents

Supplimental Documents

Area of Designation:Defined as all King County north of Interstate 90 and including all of Interstate 90 right of way, all of the cities of Seattle, Mercer Island, Issaquah, and North Bend, and all of Vashon and Maury Islands.

Background

Case Initiation and Initial Filings

January 8, 2026

Case filed in King County Superior Court.
Documents Submitted: Quiet Title Complaint (QTI), Case Information Cover Sheet (identifying the "Seattle-Bremerton Majorat" area), Motion for Waiver of Fees, and supplemental documentation concerning the historical Majorat.
Assignment: Case assigned to Judge Karen Matson Donohue (Dept. 22).

Procedural Development

January 23, 2026

Submission of Affidavit/Declaration and Certificate of eService (Sub-Number 39).

January 26, 2026

Expansion of litigation scope.
Location Analysis: Submission of technical/geographic analysis (Sub-Number 40).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus: Formal petition filed by Plaintiff (Sub-Number 42).
Documentation: Concurrent filings of supporting Affidavits and Certificates of eService (Sub-Numbers 41, 43, 45).

March 2026

Formal filing of Notice of Non-Consent and Reservation of Rights, asserting a withdrawal of consent to the jurisdiction of quasi-governmental entities (e.g., KCRHA, Port of Seattle) within the designated Area of Designation.

Upcoming Pretrial and Trial Milestones

October 5, 2026

Deadline for Discovery Cutoff (KCLCR 37(g)).

December 14, 2026

Deadline for engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution (KCLCR 16(b)).

December 21, 2026

Deadline for filing dispositive pretrial motions and Joint Statement of Evidence.

January 4, 2027

Deadline for filing Trial Briefs, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law.

January 11, 2027

Trial Date for the Quiet Title action.

Contextual Origins and Environmental Strain

The conflict emerged from a complex intersection of historical land claims and modern technological grievances. The petitioner identifies a "Sovereign Security Corridor" spanning the I-5/SR-99 corridor from downtown Seattle to the naval facilities in Bremerton. This geographic designation is framed not merely as a real estate claim but as a strategic necessity for regional oversight and infrastructure protection. The environmental strain is compounded by allegations of systemic "electronic harassment" and the non-consensual use of directed energy acoustic weapons (V2K). Despite technical evidence submitted via traceroute data suggesting device interference and unauthorized network nodes, official channels—including the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Inspector General—have declined to investigate, citing a lack of jurisdiction over non-IG matters.

Security Threats

Technologically-Facilitated Terrorism (TFT)
Unethical Human Experimentation
Crimes Against Humanity (Inhumane Acts)
Medical Torture / Pharmacological Torture
Nuremberg Code Violations
Modern Slavery
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC)
Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)
Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)
Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE)
Human Trafficking (Palermo Protocol Definition)
Debt Bondage / Peonage
Systemic Institutional Suppression
Directed-Energy Weapons
Digital Exploitation
Unauthorized Network Activity
Administrative Layering
Unconstitutional Immunity
Jurisdictional Displacement
Judicial Manipulation
Infrastructure Exploitation
Asset Suppression
"Militia" Activity
Forced Displacement

Threat Landscape of the "Special Purpose" Covenant

The legal filings and evidentiary reports compiled in Lozenich v. The State of Washington outline a comprehensive challenge to the jurisdictional and property frameworks within the Seattle-Bremerton Majorat. Through these documents, Lozenich asserts his status as the lawful heir to a specialized geographic corridor, alleging that hereditary restrictive covenants and ancient land interests have been obscured by modern administrative layering. The filings argue that the City of Seattle and King County have facilitated the rise of "quasi-governmental" authorities which operate outside of traditional constitutional constraints, effectively creating a jurisdictional "shield" that impacts land use and civil rights along the I-90 and I-5 trade corridors.

Central to Lozenich's legal strategy is the exposure of what the documents describe as systematic institutional suppression and technological exploitation. The records detail a pattern of alleged non-consensual medical experimentation and the deployment of directed-energy technologies, framing these as grave violations of the Nuremberg Code and international human rights standards. By submitting these forensic reports and notices of non-consent to the King County Superior Court, Lozenich seeks to pierce the indemnification shields held by municipal corporations and reclaim the "mental tranquility" and sovereign security inherent to the Majorat’s historical designation.

The Security Briefing and Urban Profile Report provides a comprehensive forensic analysis of the threats facing the Seattle-Bremerton Majorat, ranging from digital exploitation to institutional overreach. These documents serve as a critical intelligence resource for understanding how specialized geographic corridors are being utilized as testing grounds for unauthorized technological and administrative control.

To fully grasp the scope of the "Majorat" legal framework and the documented violations occurring within its boundaries, readers are encouraged to review the full primary sources and court filings. Accessing these documents is essential for anyone seeking to understand the ongoing challenge to reclaimed sovereign authority and the strategies being used to pierce the current veil of jurisdictional immunity.

Seattle-Bremerton Majorat Security Briefing

Seattle-Bremerton Majorat Security Briefing and Threat Assessment Presentation.

Security Briefing & Threat Assessment

Analysis

Institutional Analysis and Procedural Breakdown

Analysis of Case No. 26-2-01443-4 SEA underscores a "jurisdictional vacuum" regarding the oversight of special-purpose municipal corporations like the Port of Seattle. The petitioner alleges that these entities operate with a degree of autonomy that allows for the "fraudulent concealment" of hereditary title and the bypass of constitutional protections. The procedural breakdown is evidenced by the "Cloud on Title" affecting properties such as the Bush Hotel, where restrictive covenants are allegedly ignored by city and county authorities. This fragmentation is further highlighted by the refusal of state and local agencies to acknowledge the Majorat's legal standing, creating a loop where substantive claims regarding land rights and civil liberties remain unaddressed due to "administrative secrecy."

Framework for Legal Reform

The Seattle-Bremerton Majorat case highlights the urgent necessity for legislative evolution to address the intersection of hereditary property law and modern security states. Proposed reforms include:

Hereditary Title Verification: Establishing a clear probate pathway in Superior Court to confirm status as an heir to historical majorats under RCW 11.02.

Covenant Enforcement Standards: Refining the interpretation of restrictive covenants (per Mains Farm v. Worthington) to ensure that "clear and unambiguous language" regarding sovereignty is given its manifest meaning.

Forensic Investigation Mandates: Implementing requirements for law enforcement to investigate empirical evidence of digital and auditory harassment, preventing the "mental health bias" from disqualifying forensic hardware data.

Transparency in Quasi-Governments: Increasing the accountability of special-purpose municipal corporations to ensure their operations do not infringe upon prior-existing land rights or constitutional mandates.

How does King County's Charter shield the primary government?

The Charter for the Cultural Development Authority of King County (4Culture) employs several legal and administrative mechanisms to shield the primary government from the Authority's financial and legal obligations. These protections ensure that the Authority operates as a distinct entity whose debts and actions do not automatically bind the County.

The primary ways the Charter shields King County include:

1. Direct Limitation on Liability and Recourse

The most significant protection is the explicit restriction on legal recourse against the County. The Charter states that the Authority cannot incur or create any liability that allows a party or member of the public to access the assets, services, resources, or credit of King County.

Exclusive Satisfaction: All liabilities incurred by the Authority must be satisfied exclusively from the Authority's own assets and credit.
Bonding and Notes: Any negotiable bonds or notes issued by the Authority are satisfied solely from its own properties. Creditors have no recourse to the County unless the County Council specifically chooses to guarantee such debts through an ordinance.

2. Mandatory Legal Disclaimers

To ensure third parties are aware of this separation, the Charter requires a Mandatory Disclaimer to be posted prominently in the Authority’s offices.

Contractual Notices: This disclaimer must also be printed or stamped on all contracts, bonds, and other documents that might entail debt or liability.
Statutory Basis: The notice explicitly cites Washington state law (RCW 35.21.750), which provides that no creditor has a right of action against the county that created the authority for its debts or obligations.

3. Oversight Without Operational Liability

The Charter establishes a system where the County maintains high-level oversight without becoming liable for daily management.

Separation of Supervision: While the County Executive and Council have the power to audit the Authority and confirm its Directors, the Charter explicitly states they have "no right, power or duty to supervise the daily operations" of the Authority. This helps maintain the legal separation necessary to protect the County from operational liabilities.
Approval for Future Obligations: The Authority is prohibited from entering into any contract, agreement, or property transfer that "may or will obligate the County in the future" without prior written approval from the County.

4. Insurance Requirements

As a further layer of protection, the Charter mandates that the Authority maintain public liability insurance.

Additional Insured: This insurance must specifically name King County as an additional insured to cover potential claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage arising from the Authority's projects or activities.

5. Indemnification of Officials

The Authority is empowered to defend and indemnify its Board members and employees against civil claims, provided they acted in good faith. By requiring the Authority to provide its own defense and insurance for its officials, the Charter prevents these legal costs from becoming a direct burden on the County's legal department.

Strategy

The Strategic Corridor: Immunity, Indemnity, and "The Authority"

The geographic footprint of the Seattle-Bremerton Majorat—encompassing King County north of I-90, the I-90 right-of-way, Seattle, Mercer Island, Issaquah, North Bend, and the Vashon/Maury Islands—operates as a high-stakes "jurisdictional theater" where the area of designation itself appears to determine the level of "immunity" granted to officials. This strategic corridor is governed by "The Authority," a quasi-governmental structure that utilizes Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) to bypass standard constitutional limits. This framework has effectively exercised a unique legal shield across the Seattle Police Department, the King County Sheriff’s Office, and the King County Superior Courts, utilizing rare standards like the "Presumption of Entitlement" to indemnity found in the KCRHA Charter. By "administrative layering," these institutions use mutual aid pacts and bond covenants to protect their agents from personal liability while managing land and assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Lozenich's strategy to address this involves filing a formal Notice of Non-Consent and Reservation of Rights to explicitly reject this quasi-governmental jurisdiction. This filing serves as a direct challenge to the "Interlocal Privilege" and the automatic legal immunities claimed by these agencies under RCW 39.34. By providing formal notice that their actions are outside their legal jurisdiction, we strip away the "indemnity" argument, forcing the court to acknowledge that foundational hereditary covenants—which run with the land in perpetuity—supersede modern administrative deals. This strategy is designed to pierce the "legal shield" and reclaim the Sovereign Security Corridor from the influence of billionaire foundations and corporate logistics chains that currently dictate regional land use

Notice of Non-Consent, frames these as "Core International Crimes" and "Violations of the Laws of War/Nuremberg Code." This positions the quasi-governmental entities not just as administrative nuisances, but as parties failing their "duty of care" to prevent grave human rights abuses within the Majorat’s boundaries.

Case Strategy with Table of Authorities

Impact

Public Notice: Accountability Crisis at the KCRHA

The King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA) is currently facing a critical challenge to its operational legitimacy following a devastating forensic audit released in late April 2026. This audit, which spans from the agency’s 2021 inception through July 2025, has triggered immediate calls for the total dissolution of the authority from local lawmakers.

The Forensic Audit Findings

The financial investigation revealed systemic management failures that have compromised public trust:

Unaccounted Funds: Approximately $13 million in public funding could not be reconciled or accounted for by auditors.
Cash Deficits: At one point during the audit period, the agency reached a negative cash position of $44.7 million.
Internal Control Failures: Auditors identified significant weaknesses in financial oversight, noting that the agency lacked the necessary infrastructure to manage its complex multi-city funding model.

Read Forensic Audit by Seattle Human Services Department

Legislative Response and Dissolution

In light of these findings, Seattle City Councilmember Maritza Rivera and King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski have introduced companion resolutions to dissolve the KCRHA. The proposed legislation asserts that the agency has failed to meet its foundational goals and that its "Legal Shields" and interlocal authority—such as those granted under RCW 39.34—should be revoked in favor of direct municipal oversight.

Impact on Jurisdictional Rights

These developments align with ongoing legal efforts to challenge the KCRHA’s authority within specific corridors, such as the Seattle-Bremerton Majorat. As the agency enters an immediate hiring and spending freeze, the validity of its "Presumption of Entitlement to Indemnification" and its ability to enforce regulations within King County and the City of Seattle remain under heavy scrutiny.