Response to Manifesto

Last week, a two-page manifesto was distributed at the golf course, inside containers illegally attached to traffic signs which had to be removed by city employees, and posted on plaintiffs’ website. 

The plaintiffs listed their objectives and goals, along with the same allegations and numbers we’ve heard for the last 3 years. Ironically, they have never once asked the homeowners they represent, about our goals, but apparently we’re not their primary concern.

Questions for Plaintiffs: You have a less than 50% chance of winning at trial;  if you lose, are you willing and able to pay the cost for your failed effort?  
For causing a negative impact on the value of our homes? Closing our golf course? Can you compensate those who invested in your lawyers’ trust fund?  
For liens on homes who didn’t pay their fees based on your website’s advice? Attorneys’ fees? If the court orders you to pay the prevailing party’s legal costs?
Consider the cost!

Here is our response to 3 of their 4 objectives, with their statements in quotes:

Objective #4: “18 Paradise does not wish to settle, negotiate or even communicate through counsel…”

Each of the attorneys representing plaintiffs, class members, 18 Paradise, MJ Management and Intervenors had a several day email exchange in early June regarding coming together to mediate on June 12. Counsel for 18 Paradise did communicate with plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mr. Davis, to assure him 18 Paradise would mediate “in good faith.” But despite this assurance in writing from 18 Paradise, Matthew Davis said no to the mediation which was then cancelled. 

To now read this completely false statement from plaintiffs who were copied on those emails, who knew their attorney refused to participate in mediation, is beyond comprehension. We expect honesty from those who profess to love truth.  

Objective #1: “Homeowners are entitled to accountability for the collection and expenditure of their maintenance fees…”

We agree we deserve accountability from all sides. When you accuse 18 Paradise and MJ of deceptive practices while your own lawyers refuse to provide accountability for our maintenance fees in their trust fund, it nullifies your credibility. One of the intervenors sent a check to the lawyers’ trust fund. The lawyers (Mr. Andersson and trustee, Mr. Berning) declared to the court they had never received it while the cashed check was evidence they not only received it, they deposited it. If the people in charge are this clueless, then there’s no accountability on your side either. And what about the “online ledger” created by plaintiffs for the lawyer’s trust fund?  We’ve never heard of any accounting or refunds to those who donated to it.

Objective #2: “Plaintiffs, and all class members, want the golf course to remain open and well maintained.”

We want to believe you but last week’s decision by lawyer Matthew Davis to walk away from mediation says otherwise. He blocked our chance to move forward, leaving us in limbo about if or when the golf course will close. This does not look or feel like representation by people fighting for our rights, but rather, a means to an end of getting money.

Following are responses to their primary claims in the letter along with a recommendation:

1. 6th and 7th Amendments are in violation
What you really mean is Judge Freeman was in violation as he ruled these amendments were: “…within the general scope of the agency relationship formed under the Lease Management Agreement.” He allowed them to remain.

2. At $93/month, 18 Paradise collects over $600,000/year
You continue to make this claim, but the majority of us stopped paying after Dec. 2019 so why do you keep repeating what we know is a gross exaggeration?

3. Definition of PRD and COS
Your claim, “the Washington State Superior Court signed an Order…” makes it sound like a higher court became involved with our COS definition but every document in our case has, “In the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Whatcom County” as its heading. You purposely dropped the name of our county to make it look more important but it’s the same court we’ve had since 2020. Stop trying to deceive us.

Judge Freeman (our judge since 2021) ordered the definition of our COS using verbiage that was clearly borrowed from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of our Master Declaration. He obviously read our CCR’s and chose to follow the intended meaning in defining our COS but plaintiffs presented it as a brand new definition that changes everything. It’s been in our governing documents since the 1990’s, it changes nothing.

Judge Freeman’s “definition of our PRD Common Open Space” included a list of specific parameters with exceptions like “areas within the golf course…”

Plaintiffs definition of our PRD (without COS) is: “individual homes and several sub-developments.” 

City of Lynden’s definition of our PRD in 1992 report includes all components: 
“The Homestead PRD is a 258 acre planned development located between Bender, Depot, and Benson Roads on the north side of Lynden, Washington. The improvements associated with the PRD will include the installation of an 18 hole golf course, approximately 600 housing units, and complete roadway and utility infrastructure.

Notice the set up for this comparison using differences they hope we won’t notice:
Judge defines COS,
Plaintiffs define PRD as housing,
City defines PRD with golf course, housing, and COS (roadway and utility not dedicated to the city). It’s apples to oranges, not a valid comparison at all.                                                         

One more consideration: If Judge Freeman meant what plaintiffs continue to claim, why did he deny their motion to exclude the storm ponds in Jan. 2023?

4. HOAG’s four-month attempt to communicate with 18 Paradise
You state from Jan – April 2020, “the HOAG attempted communications with 18 Paradise…” Here’s a refresher of our history:

Dec. 29, 2019, HOAG Update 1: “The first goal is to get organized, then move to negotiation or lawyer.”  

Jan. 16, 2020, HOAG Update 3: “If you were not able to attend Jan 13 meeting, then the following is for you: “We are working on setting up an Attorney Fund.” 

Jan. 29, 2020, HOAG Update 4: “We had a meeting with two attorneys, Dave Andersson and Daniel Clark. We learned and discussed legal avenues that we can take if needed.”

Feb. 28, 2020, HOAG Update 5:“Unfortunately, negotiations with MJ Management have failed.”
“As a result, we feel that there is no other alternative than to consider a possible legal case against the current owner of the golf course (18 Paradise LLP) and MJ Management.”

Your updates show from Jan – Feb (two months, not four), attorney David Andersson was already involved, starting a legal fund, influencing the HOAG, filing our HOA documents, directing the letter to Mr. Chen and fast-tracking litigation. HOAG members didn’t stand a chance.

5. Plaintiffs Offers Ignored
Plaintiffs have offered to settle since 2020 but 18 Paradise refused to engage.     
18 Paradise offered to mediate in 2023 but Matthew Davis refused to engage.           
There is no difference here, both sides let us down. Stop trying to convince us you’re the good guys when you fight for the lawyers, instead of us.

6. Mr. Scholten’s Meetings with Plaintiffs and Counsel
You claim plaintiffs told Mr. Scholten the lawsuit would be settled once an HOA was permitted by 18 Paradise. Did plaintiffs believe Mr. Scholten controlled
18 Paradise? And why were homeowners left out of the equation?                                                       
NO invitation for homeowners to discuss HOA
NO vote allowed from homeowners
NO options about type of HOA
NO information about HOA state laws
NO consideration for homeowners’ opinion on this matter                           

Where are the minutes of these meetings to verify who was present, topics discussed, motions passed or voted down? Surely a meeting of lawyers, plaintiffs, and prospective buyer was recorded to document discussion points and solutions?     

Since 2020, you have continued to force your version of an HOA onto us, removing our choice – once again – in the matter. Even the legal articles of incorporation to establish our HOA with the Secretary of State is in a plaintiff’s name, a man we never elected.  He pays the renewal fee each year, and has his home address and Attorney Andersson’s P O Box on the form.  Neither of these men live in Lynden but they are a legal Director of our HOA??? 

7. Current and Prospective Owners
You describe the current and prospective owners as not having faith in the “goodwill of the homeowners” in our community. But the real lack of faith in goodwill is from us, toward your lawyers, when they removed our right to consent in how we wish to govern our community and not participate in your class action lawsuit.
Don’t you get it? We deserve the right to choose and your lawyers refuse to allow it!  

Do you ever wonder why the majority in Homestead don’t want to be involved in your lawsuit? Don’t show up at your meetings? Don’t care to visit your website? It’s because your words don’t match your actions, your claims of doing this for our good aren’t compatible with your attitude towards those who disagree with you. But we have not given up on you, we truly believe if you listen to those you agreed to represent – the homeowners – you can still turn this around.  

Recommend:
Meet without the lawyers, take a serious look at the cost you may be liable for, weigh the unintended consequences, agree to a mediation and stop chasing sunk costs. We realize it’s human tendency to continue an endeavor after investing time, energy, and/or money but the evidence shows this is not the best decision for your case or our Homestead community.