In my opinion - that's a waste of time. If the judge didn't grant the request to begin with - they rarely do on a motion to reconsider.

What I would do is take a pro-active position.

1) place "no trespassing" signs on your property and criminallly prosecute him if he trespasses.

2) file suit for fraud as to his property recordings which interfere with your property interests

and

3) go to the DA's office and file a private criminal complaint as to his fraudulent property recordings -see if the DA will prosecute him


Those are what I would do.

You can try the motion for reconsideration - but don't be surprised if it's again denied. To the contrary, be completely surprised if it's granted.

Within that motion for reconsideration - you can give evidence as to his lying to the court. But I wouldn't expect to much.



Please - rate me with 3 happy faces or more for my answer! Thanks!!

Maybe but doubtful.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

So you can prove that he made defamatory statements to 3rd persons BUT you also need to be able to prove monetary damages - that's usually the downfall.

Now some jurisdictions allow for the action of "false light".

False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being" rather than protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation^[1] and in being about the impression created rather than being about true or false. If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.^[1]

"False light privacy claims often arise under the same facts as defamation cases, and therefore not all states recognize false light actions. There is a subtle difference in the way courts view the legal theories -- false light cases are about damage to a person's personal feelings or dignity, whereas defamation is about damage to a person's reputation."^[2]

"The specific elements of the Tort of FALSE LIGHT vary considerably even among those jurisdictions which do recognize this Tort. Generally, these elements consist of the following:

1. A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;
2. made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in "Defamation" cases);
3. which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND
4. that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons). [Wikipedia]

Washington courts have not explicitly recognized the tort of "false light." However, unlike several other states, Washington has not explicitly rejected the tort of false light either. In one case, the Washington Supreme Court appeared skeptical about whether allowing false light claims would be a good idea due to its similarity to defamation. See Eastwood v. Cascade Broad. Co., 722 P.2d 1295, 1298-99 (Wash. 1986). [citmedialaw.org]

You could maybe pursue that.