UPDATES

Who's Who: For MJ: Jeff Possinger and Reid Meyers For 18 Paradise: Ben Vandenberghe For Plaintiffs Class: David Andersson and Matthew Davis The following motions will be addressed at April 5, 2024 Hearing: Reply re Motion to Certify Class Declaration of Possinger ISO of Reply Response re Motion for Reconsideration Supplement Declaration of Possinger re Attorney’s Fees and Costs Supplement Declaration of Meyers re Attorney’s Fees and Costs #1: This Motion from Mr. Possinger defends the counterclaim against plaintiffs. If allowed, th e counterclaim would reverse plaintiffs class into becoming a defendants class. Below are three excerpts from this Motion to Certify Class (from plaintiffs to defendants) that helps explain: a. “…Plaintiffs blithely ignore the fact that litigation is not a voluntary process. When Plaintiffs’ Class Representatives took their roles and responsibilities as Plaintiffs Class Representatives, they knew or should have known , that in the event of a counterclaim their roles could be reversed .” b. “The notion that a plaintiff and their legal counsel can file a lawsuit, and then only be required to defend those counterclaims that it voluntarily chooses to defend , ignores the reality of litigation .” c. Plaintiff lawyers, Andersson and Davis, are quoted as saying they, “will now, shortly before the trial date, withdraw as counsel for the counterclaims”… (if MJ’s motion allowed). TO BE CLEAR: I f plaintiffs' role is reversed and they are now defendants, a risk the y accepted when choosing a class action lawsuit i n 2020, the lawyers they hired , Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis , are on record saying they will abandon the ir class just before trial. Plaintiff representatives, wake up! These lawyers have already divided our neighborhoods, now they 're destroy ing our community. You agreed to represent us , m ake a decision for our community and your community by ending this convoluted nonsense of a lawsuit - please! #3: Jeff Possinger’s reasons and request for the court to deny the plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration regarding Polley (accountant for MJ) documents. #4: Jeff Possinger’s legal fees for research, drafts, preparing for hearings, litigating, etc to obtain Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against plaintiffs after they ignored Cease and Desist Order and continued to post confidential documents. Total: $26,865.50. #5: Reid Meyers’ legal fees to litigate, obtain Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against plaintiffs. Total: $6,000 . If Judge Freeman allows these legal fees to be charged, they are to be paid by plaintiffs.

We have received many questions about maintenance fee checks, and submit the following answers: Can I contact 18 Paradise directly? Many of you have told us they sent letters and notes to 18 Paradise, requesting confirmation their check has been received or asking about discounts. Unfortunately, as long as we homeowners are in a class action lawsuit against 18 Paradise, we cannot communicate with them, or they with us, without our lawyers present. To show just how sensitive this issue has become, MJ's two new lawyers filed a motion to disqualify attorneys Andersson and Davis for speaking to Mick and Josh when they did not have a lawyer representing them. However, we homeowners can still talk among ourselves. To confirm your check has been deposited, we suggest calling your bank, which many are doing and it's working fine. And if it helps, some are keeping a separate tally of their payments, in addition to their bank's records. Can my check be forwarded to 18 Paradise using Homestead address? Due to MJ Management and 18 Paradise being completely separate legal entities, there is no shared account or request to the Post Office to forward MJ’s mail (115 E Homestead Blvd) to 18 Paradise (PO Box 329, Lynden). Per June 2023 letter from 18 Paradise, the correct payee on checks is: 18 Paradise LLP, and their mailing address is: P O Box 329, Lynden WA 98264. Please notify your financial institutions of these changes if you have automatic bill payments. Note: "Homestead Golf Course" or "Homestead Farms" or "Homestead" was attached to MJ, an entity who cannot accept funds from homeowners, effective June 30, 2023. Please remove these as a payee. Did judge rule we are to pay $36? Sept. 2021, Judge Freeman allowed homeowners to pay the previous amount of $36 until a jury decides the appropriate amount for our fees. For those people who want to pay $93, the $57 difference will be kept in a court registry until the trial. If the amount is determined to be $93 at trial, those who paid this amount will owe nothing. If the amount is determined to be $36, those who paid $93 will be reimbursed the $57 difference for each month. But for those who paid only $36, if the jury determines $93 is appropriate, they will owe $57 x months not paid. When Judge Freeman heard homeowners were told not to pay the reduced fee of $36, he became very angry with Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis. The judge had lowered the fees to calm the situation until trial but homeowners being told to ignore his decision was seen as unprofessional and disrespectful. Note: It's never a good idea to be on the bad side of the judge presiding over your case. What if I have uncashed checks? Please email us if you have an uncashed check for the months of July, August, September 2023. Per Mick O'Bryan's deposition (previous post), checks brought to him during those months were placed in a folder but could not be cashed by him. We have started a list to keep track of those for you. Is there a discount for paying annually? Due to the active lawsuits and increased legal actions, any discount offered in the past is no longer available. The correct amount would by $93 x 12 = $1116 or $36 x 12 = $432. Keep in mind, if you choose to pay $36 and the jury decides $93 is reasonable amount, you could owe the balance. What do our maintenance fees pay for? Our electric bill averages $1800-2000 per month, involves 213 street lights, with separate meters for two pump houses, irrigation control, and maintenance shed. Salaries, equipment, and material for the few individuals maintaining COS grounds which includes mowing, weeding, clearing sidewalks of branches and plant debris, replacing broken/uprooted sidewalk sections along golf course, repairing irrigation leaks, unclogging storm drains, culverts, and weirs, replacing broken rails on our many split-rail fences, repairing bridges not connected to cart paths, maintaining median strips with trees and grass, neighborhood signs and islands with their own landscaping, sport courts, tot lot, and random stretches of COS between homes and streets. Maintenance of Homestead park's: Aging wooden bridges Gazebo with rotting, moss-covered roof and live electric wire inside ceiling Seasonal creek filled with dead trees, a fire hazard in dry summers Large storm basin with a degraded culvert funneling rainwater into a bio-swale before entering FishTrap Creek. Irrigation pipes from storm ponds, which are used for watering grassy areas throughout the park. Each of these need upgrading or replacement. Note: Jim and Sharon Vanderzee, the couple who have maintained our COS for 35+ years, verified their paychecks were from 18 Paradise, and to whom they submitted their hours. What is not helpful? Homeowners telling their neighbors not to pay any fees. Why would someone want our community deliberately neglected to the point of no-return? And then purposely set up their neighbors for a possible lien on their home, late fees, or a lawsuit for non-payment? With six lawyers involved, this is not the time to treat our situation lightly. If you don't believe us, watch a hearing or ask our lawyers, as even the judge has remarked how contentious our case has become. Who are the legal parties at this time? There is a class action lawsuit , made up of Homestead homeowners as the class, 11 plaintiffs as their representatives, and two lawyers; Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis. As the class, we are the plaintiff, 18 Paradise is the defendant. There is a second lawsuit with MJ Management as the plaintiff and 18 Paradise as the defendant, for terminating MJ's lease and employment. There is a filing by MJ's new lawyers (Meyers and Possinger) to disqualify Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis but the hearing for that argument was canceled due to one of the lawyers being ill. It has been re-scheduled for Jan. 16th, 1:30 m. There is a filing by MJ's new lawyers (Meyers and Possinger) to sue homeowners who have not paid since 2020 but that hearing was also canceled due to one of the lawyers being ill. The details for this filing were featured in Lynden Tribune article. There are still people who believe that because they chose not to join the lawsuit, they are not legally part of the class. But Mr. Andersson notified homeowners in April 2020, by letter and email, that if we did not want to participate, "Essentially, everyone is in , until they opt out." And yes, this is legal and how typical class actions operate. Lessons learned? We can now see, after 3.5 years, just how negative an impact this lawsuit has had on our neighborhoods and Homestead's green, open spaces, some of which will be felt for years to come. But we want to end on an encouraging note; we are still a faith-based community of neighbors who enjoy living in one of Lynden's most beautiful neighborhoods. This is our home and we must continue to work together to preserve and protect our small-town values, friendliness, and breathtaking views! With God, all things really are possible!

The following Letter to the Editor was sent to the Lynden Tribune a few weeks ago, by Intervenor Maureen Dowling. Here is her expanded, original letter: Homestead What price would you put on living in a community of friendly people? A place where there is low crime and strong law enforcement to provide security? Where we have accessible leadership in our city government and miles of scenic trails and open sidewalks for greeting neighbors and exercising in the fresh air? Like the well-known MasterCard commercial, most of us would answer, “priceless.” But for 11 plaintiffs and 2 lawyers, $57 was the price to file a class action lawsuit. To refuse mediation. To reject a real estate lawyer’s proposal to apply the 2018 state law which would allow us to vote our annual budget. To force homeowners to be included in their class action lawsuit by invalidating their opt-out option. To turn down a settlement negotiation with all parties present, including the owner. For them, $57 was worth dividing neighbors who were once close friends. Worth diverting maintenance fees to the lawyers’ trust fund in spite of a pandemic and Canada’s border being closed for nearly 2 years. The 11 plaintiffs and 2 lawyers decided, without asking for a vote or feedback from those of us who live here, to go straight to litigation over $57 and then convince us to pay their legal fees. And now, the golf course is closed while electric bills, repairs, and maintenance of common space still require our fees. Storm ponds and basins, street lights, fences, bridges, and sidewalks continue to deteriorate while more lawyers have been hired, more hearings scheduled, more allegations made. For the managers, lawyers, and plaintiffs, many of whom do not live in Lynden, our home is their battleground over $57, a difference we homeowners could have worked out, if given the chance. Instead, an immigration lawyer from Canada advised Lynden homeowners to file a class action lawsuit, and hire him to represent them - but why? There were no immigration issues to solve, just a straightforward dispute between homeowners and management over $57. And now the plaintiffs’ newest post on their website claim the Intervenors, Duane Scholten, and City of Lynden are against homeowners and against accountability?!? Since many of us have strong ties to this community, and knowing the integrity of our neighbors, business owners, city council, and leadership, we recognize these absurd lies are to discredit good people. We won’t be fooled and we won't stop fighting for Homestead!

MJ's lawyer, Jeff Possinger, has filed a new motion to amend their counterclaim. Judge Freeman will hear this motion Dec. 15th at Whatcom County Superior Court in Bellingham. Mr. Possinger believes the amended counterclaim will be the most effective way to collect past due assessments that MJ Management alleges is owed by homeowners who have not paid maintenance fees since 2020. This amendment will also include certifying the homeowners as a defense class in order to litigate the counterclaims as one class entity. https://www.possingerlaw.com/mj-management-seeks-defendant-class-action-counterclaim-in-ongoing-homestead-community-litigation/ Per Mr. Possinger's website: "A Defendant Class Action has been described by some legal commentators as a “unicorn” in the world of class action litigation as they are particularly uncommon, but the attorneys for MJ Management believe that this is an appropriate action for the case that has now been raging in Whatcom County Superior Court for over three and a half years. 'There is no question that this is an uncommon legal theory,' says attorney Jeffrey Possinger, one of the attorneys representing MJ Management and other defendants. 'But it has been used effectively in other jurisdictions around the United States, and it appears that this may be the first time a Defendant Class Action has been brought in Washington State.'” Our Perspective: As the legal battles have continued around us, causing further division, we are thankful for those who have faithfully paid their fees, enabling Jim and Sharon to continue maintaining our COS. For those still on the fence, we encourage you to join us in financially supporting our community. Despite what plaintiff lawyers have said, there is no evidence anyone is using our $36 fees against us. In fact, the only time there's been suspicion of deceptive practices has been with the plaintiffs' own trust fund, and that was based on a lack of financial transparency. Regarding utilities, both restrooms on the golf course have been closed by the city due to non-payment of water bills. We submitted a list of street lights in Homestead that do not turn on at night, to PSE. Their Customer Care has forwarded the list, "to evaluate and repair the lights." Meanwhile, electric bills for our 213 streetlights are estimated to be a few thousand dollars each month, not to mention repairing those that have been damaged by cars. With the rainy season upon us, culverts and gravel channels need to be monitored and un-clogged, especially after wind storms, and there are sidewalk slabs, fence posts and sagging bridge planks needing replacement. And there are many more we could add. Bottom line: Lack of fees means lack of employees, which results in lack of maintenance. Let's support our community!

Who's Who : Plaintiff lawyers: David Andersson and Matt Davis MJ Lawyers: Jeff Possinger and Reid Meyers 18 Paradise lawyer: Ben VandenBerghe Judge Grochmal filled in for Judge Freeman for Sept. 21st hearing Oct. 5, 2023 Hearing: The night before this hearing, plaintiff lawyers filed 142 pages with the court, including one of the confidential documents that was in violation of Judge Grochmal's ruling on Sept. 21. The opposing lawyers (MJ and 18 Paradise) argued that Andersson and Davis had taken advantage of a time-delay to post confidential documents a second time , despite the standing Protective Order and Judge Grochmal's ruling.  Judge Freeman asked Mr. Andersson why he filed the confidential document on Oct. 4th when he knew it was disputed by the other lawyers. Mr. Andersson explained the new lawyers, Jeff Possinger and Reid Meyers, had de-railed the lawsuit, all had been going well until they were hired by MJ. Per Mr. Andersson , Judge Freema n's Protective Order had confused interim Judge Grochmal, otherwise, she would not have ruled against them. He said they (Davis and Andersson) have been defending the homeowners against MJ who threatened homeowners with sanctions if they did not pay their fees. Mr. Andersson then explained to Judge Freeman that he and Mr. Davis carefully review each and every document before posting on their website, to make sure it is not confidential or privileged. Judge Freeman interrupted, saying he recalled they (Davis and Andersson) had claimed the plaintiffs managed the website, not the lawyers. Mr. Andersson quickly explained he can't even operate his own cell phone, let alone manage a website. Both Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis added they do not believe any documents qualify as "privileged" in this lawsuit. Judge Freeman appeared perturbed, stated he needed to "walk away" and left the court room for 10 minutes. When he returned, his ruling was as follows: Grant injunctive relief, all 142 pages filed Oct. 4th, will be sealed 2. The Lease documents are public, not confidential 3. There is concern irreparable harm could have been done 4. Plaintiffs did not maintain the status quo 5. Judge's Protective Order was not followed, and he is considering sending contempt motions for Judge Grochmal to rule Judge Freeman was asked to determine the guardrails for the upcoming evidentiary hearing due to plaintiff attorneys' tendency to go off-script. Judge Freeman agreed to narrow the scope for Oct. 25 & 26 hearing, and agreed there should be an exchange of documents between all parties by Oct. 18. Bottom line : There is strong animosity between lawyers. Judge Freeman has repeatedly asked them to be civil towards each other but that has yet to be achieved. Oct 13, 2023 Hearing : A Motion for a Protective Order was to be heard on this date. Oct. 25 & 26, 2023 Hearing: This hearing was a two-day evidentiary hearing which allows witnesses to be questioned and testimony to be heard. The five witnesses scheduled; Mick O'Bryan, Josh Williams, Scott Hillius, Matt Davis, and David Andersson. At the beginning of the hearing, lawyers for 18 Paradise and MJ Management informed Judge Freeman that plaintiff lawyers, Mr. Davis and Mr. Andersson, had done a "document dump" the night before which included at least one confidential document. Due to the last minute nature of this filing, lawyers for 18 Paradise and MJ had not had time to read all of the documents. Ben VandenBerghe (18 Paradise) requested these documents be kept off the record due to the confidential document, and be sent to court clerk. Mr. Davis (plaintiff lawyer) admitted he included documents the other lawyers considered "protected" because he wants to prove there are no protected documents in this case. His reason was MJ's accountant, Ms. Polley, presented documents at her deposition without any objection from the other parties, therefore, he does not see them as confidential. Mr. Possinger (MJ lawyer) clarified the purpose for this hearing was to present evidence to disqualify Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis, therefore, they needed to stay on task. If they were to continue spending time on Mr. Davis' issues, there would not be enough time to call each witness. Deposition of Josh Williams: Mr. Possinger's questions were followed by Mr. Davis' questions for each of the three witnesses. We have summarized what each stated below: Josh's education is in business and sports management. Employment has been 24 years in golf course management. Mr. Williams formed legal partnership, MJ Management, with Mick O'Bryan in 2017, but once he was hired by Loomis Trail golf course in 2018, was no longer involved with Homestead golf course. Josh confirmed he has general knowledge of legal terms but was not aware the attorney-client privilege could be waived. He now understands MJ's counterclaim is for money owed MJ but not Mr. Williams personally. MJ was dismissed from the lawsuit July 2022, and then brought back into the lawsuit Jan. 2023. Their previous lawyer, Philip Buri, withdrew as their lawyer June 2023. Josh was shown copies of texts he received from lead plaintiff Scott Hillius, April - June 2023. The texts included an offer to talk with Mr. Hillius about previous lawyer, Mr. Buri, to which Josh explained he had left MJ in 2020, and that Scott should speak with Mick. Scott told Josh he (Josh) would be responsible for liability and that Josh should have stayed out of the lawsuit once MJ was dismissed. Josh did not recall meeting Scott prior to the texts. Mick arranged for both of them to meet with plaintiff lawyers, Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis, on 6-12-23. Josh recalled discussing the following points with lawyers Andersson and Davis : Lawyers told Mick and Josh they could be dismissed by signing a legal document dismissing their counterclaim 2. Mr. Buri was the reason for MJ being pulled back into the lawsuit, which was grounds for a malpractice lawsuit against Mr. Buri 3. Lawyers asked if and what Mr. Buri's advice had been to MJ 4. 18 Paradise is who the plaintiffs are after, not MJ, who were just "straw men" for 18 Paradise 5. If MJ remains in the lawsuit, they will be personally liable for $15 million 6. Lawyers will prepare a Declaration for each of them to sign, which will dismiss them from the lawsuit 7. Josh believed signing the Declaration was the correct process to be dismissed, and that he didn't need a lawyer because he had Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis advising him 8. Josh believed he would have asked Mr. Buri to drop the counterclaim for past-due maintenance fees if he had known he could be dismissed 9. At a hearing when Mr. Buri withdrew as MJ's lawyer (6/23), Josh's signed Declaration was presented but Josh was not dismissed 10. Mr. Andersson explained that 18 Paradise's lawyer, Ben, was the reason Josh was not dismissed Exhibits: Declaration emailed from Mr. Andersson to Josh Williams Declaration signed by Josh Williams dated June 22, 2023 Email from Mr. Davis to Josh, admitting he (Davis) did not have confidence Judge Freema would dismiss MJ Josh had previously been deposed twice by Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis, but Josh was not represented by counsel at 2nd deposition. Mr. Davis asked Josh that if his and Mr. Andersson's advice did not work out for him , how does he know Mr. Possinger's (Mick's lawyer) advice will work out? Deposition of Lead Plaintiff Scott Hillius: Mr. Hillius stays updated on the lawsuit by reviewing court documents on line, or documents received from plaintiffs. Lives in Bellingham , owns property in Homestead, and is HOA president for Sports Club Cabana Condos in Lynden . Scott recalls speaking with Josh when he was a HOAG member, Jan. 2020 , and that his niece used to work with Josh at a different golf course. He felt comfortable reaching out to Josh to find out what was going on. When asked why, if counterclaim had been in place for 3 years, he texted Josh about, "now that counterclaim filed." Scott explained he was "astonished" Josh had been pulled back into the lawsuit after being dismissed, he just wanted to see what had happened. He was also surprised their lawyer, Mr. Buri, had withdrawn from representing them. When asked why he had questioned Josh if he was no longer with MJ, Scott admitted he still considered Josh a part of MJ despite now realizing Josh is no longer with MJ. Deposition of Mick O'Bryan: Note: At 11:00 am, there was time to depose Mick O'Bryan but he was not in the courthouse. His lawyer, Jeff Possinger, called and texted but was unable to reach Mick, so the judge called for an early recess. Court resumed at 1:30 for Mr. Hillius' deposition, followed by Mick's deposition at 3:00. Mr. Possinger questioned Mick : Mick still works for MJ Management as his company worked jobs "outside of Homestead." Current jobs are "irrigation blow-outs and pipe work." When asked if that kind of physical labor was difficult, Mick replied it was as he's now 50 years old. Mr. Possinger asked if fatigue from doing physical work was why Mick slept through his phone calls earlier, Mick agreed it was and that he had also slept through his alarm. Mick began working at Homestead in 1993 as a teen. 2. He kept paperwork from MJ's outside businesses separate from Homestead's paperwork. 3. Philip Buri became MJ's lawyer in 2018, which was pre-lawsuit, and Mick trusted Mr. Buri to handle all legal matters. 4. Mick understands the lawsuit is over an increase in fees in 2019, and there is a counterclaim for MJ. 5. As of Sept. 2021, Josh legally withdrew from MJ Management, but Josh physically left MJ in 2019. 6. MJ and Mick are now one and the same entity 7. June 2023, Mick and Josh met with plaintiff lawyers, Andersson and Davis, to be dismissed from lawsuit. The lawyers explained their target was 18 Paradise, and MJ had been brought back into lawsuit due to Mr. Buri's counterclaim. Lawyers asked for copy of indemnification contract between MJ and 18 Paradise, which Mick provided. He now realizes it is a protected document. 8. Mick was concerned he would not get paid if dismissed, the lawyers explained MJ could still be paid with owed fees if they won the lawsuit. 9. Mick provided with Declaration to sign to be dismissed, but he changed his mind and did not sign it. Mr. Davis questioned Mick : Mr. Davis had 10 exhibits to present to the court. He began with three Profit & Loss statements from 2018 with three different net amounts. Two of the numbers were in the minus, one showed a profit. Mick was asked to explain why the numbers were different for the same year, he could only confirm the numbers were as stated. Mr. Davis explained that to determine which amount was correct, he would need protected documents. Mr. Davis recalled advising MJ to sign Declarations in order to be dismissed from lawsuit, as well as asking MJ for financial records at their 6-12-23 meeting. Mr. Davis filed a Motion to Compel the release of those financial records, and then Mr. Buri withdrew as MJ's counsel soon after. On 6-15-23 , Mr. Davis emailed MJ's bookkeeper , Ms. Polley, who emailed a response. At this point, Judge Freeman ended the hearing. The lawyers agreed to work on final exhibit together, and Mr. Possinger informed Judge Freeman the remaining evidence would be submitted to the court as Declarations. Once Judge Freeman reviews the evidence presented, as well as submitted Declarations for what was not presented, it is our understanding he will rule on whether the evidence was enough to disqualify plaintiff lawyers. Bottom line: This lawsuit continues to reveal there was far more happening behind the scenes than we realized . How will a jury be cap able of realistically grasping the twists, turns and changing parties in this lawsuit in order to make an informed ruling? 

This follows the previous post, Part 1, showing what continued to happen in August through September. We have provided a "bottom line" summary for those who prefer skipping the court document quotes. Who's Who : Class Counsel/Plaintiff Lawyers - David Andersson and Matt Davis who filed CPA lawsuit May 2020, class action lawsuit Nov. 2020 MJ Management: Mick O'Bryan and Josh Williams MJ Management's Counsel/Lawyers: Jeff Possinger and Reid Meyers (their former lawyer was Philip Buri) 18 Paradise's Counsel/Lawyer: Ben VandenBerghe Plaintiffs' Website : Homestead-HOA.org. This was launched July 2020, has been a source of advice from lawyers Davis and Andersson, copies of court documents and opinions by plaintiffs (according to their lawyers), long-standing requests for money to pay legal fees, and pages of commentary by Matt Davis about how we have been deceived and ripped off by everyone but them. Their secretive trust fund says otherwise. Homeowners' Website : OurHomesteadLynden.com. This was launched in July 2022, by and for homeowners living in Homestead. We have various backgrounds and areas of expertise, make every effort to verify before posting, quote court documents, and have never asked for your money. Our team includes intervenors, financial experts, a HOAG member or two, those who golf, those who don't, researchers who understand HOAs, CCRs, and Master Declarations, and even a few who would like to see the lawsuit play out, while the majority wants it settled yesterday. But we all agree we are neighbors first, and the most important win will be to win back our community. Let's get started: Declaration (written statement under oath) by Josh Williams , Aug. 29, 2023: Starting in April 2023, Lead Plaintiff Scott Hillius began texting Josh directly. Texts were about MJ being dismissed but were now back in the lawsuit due to their counterclaim. Hillius was quoted as saying to Josh they were, "now back on the hook for any liability found. " MJ's former lawyer, Mr. Buri, gave them permission to speak with plaintiffs' lawyers. MJ met with Andersson and Davis June 12, 2023. MJ told they would be dismissed if both signed declarations prepared by Andersson and Davis but if they remained in the case, they would be liable for $15 million dollars personally Plaintiffs' counsel "spoke badly of Buri" and asked what Mr. Buri had advised them about the case Declaration by Mick O'Bryan , Aug. 29, 2023 : Mick stated Andersson and Davis told him they "wanted to help us but we had to help them." Told to cooperate with Andersson and Davis because, "...who they really wanted to go after was Defendant 18 Paradise LLP." Andersson asked Mick for a copy of "indemnification documents" between MJ and 18 Paradise so they could be released from the case. Mick believed Mr. Andersson and provided a copy of the documents. One page from Mick's deposition (July 2023) was attached to this declaration regarding his receiving maintenance fees from homeowners. He stated, "As of June 1st, we stopped receiving the maintenance fee." But he acknowledged checks were still being sent to Homestead address: "A lot of it is still coming to our address, which are just putting in a folder for whoever comes to get it." Bottom line : Mick and Josh meeting with lawyers Davis and Andersson, without a lawyer representing them, opened the door to potential manipulation and access to privileged information. Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel by MJ's Counsel , Aug. 30, 2023 We will begin with a quote from Mr. Possinger's Motion to Disqualify Class Counsel: "Lawyers that are involved in litigation are bound by both the Rules of Civil Procedure , including the Discovery Rules, as well as the Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to their conduct during the course of that litigation." Bottom line : Contrary to what people think of lawyers, they actually have rules like the ones we grew up with; "Play well with others, Wait your turn, Be honest." Per their "Rules for Professional Conduct" site, a lawyer's actions, respect, and confidence are to rise above minimal standards as they demonstrate "the highest possible degree of ethical conduct." Allegations : MJ's lawyers are claiming these Rules were not followed by Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis as they "gained access to privileged communications of MJ Management." When Mick and Josh were without a lawyer, plaintiffs lawyers "actively inquired into the attorney-client communications between the MJ Defendants and their counsel, Phil Buri." This Motion alleges Andersson and Davis, "has used that information against the MJ Defendants to their detriment." The allegation also includes Lead Plaintiff, Scott Hillius: "...evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff, Scott Hillius, was coordinating with Class Counsel regarding communications with MJ Defendants well in advance of the actions that give rise to sanctions being imposed on Class Counsel." Bottom line : It appears Scott Hillius was the plaintiff lawyers' re-con man in getting information to and from MJ. The Motion quotes Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 4.3: "The lawyer shall not give legal advice to un-represented person other than the advice to secure the services of another legal practitioner..." This Rule then adds, "...the possibility that the lawyer will compromise the un-represented person's interests is so great that the Rule prohibits the giving of any advice apart from the advice to obtain the services of another legal practitioner." Bottom line : A lawyer cannot advise a person without a lawyer other than to advise them, "Get a lawyer." According to this Motion, however, plaintiffs' counsel did exactly the opposite by advising MJ: About their rights regarding 18 Paradise About their counterclaims and remedies available to them such as dismissing their counterclaim Plaintiffs lawyers prepared declarations for MJ to sign which was in violation of RPC 4.3 because they were not MJ's lawyers Pressured MJ into signing the declarations under threat of multi-million dollar personal liability Instead of advising MJ to find a new lawyer per their own lawyer RPC rule, plaintiff lawyers told MJ they would most likely not be able to find one in their current situation Bottom line : By ignoring their be-a-good-lawyer rules, this might be construed as over-reach, interference, and unethical. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing , Aug. 31, 2023 *Note how quickly the above happened: Declarations on Aug. 29, Motion to Disqualify Aug. 30, and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Aug. 31. MJ lawyers, Possinger and Meyers, requested and have been granted an evidentiary hearing on Oct. 25 and 26. The witnesses they have requested to question/depose are: Mick O'Bryan, Josh Williams, David Andersson, Matt Davis, and Scott Hillius as these were the parties involved when MJ was not represented by a lawyer (see Declarations by Mick and Josh above). Regarding one pair of lawyers questioning another pair of lawyers on the opposite side, Mr. Possinger stated: "There is no question that deposing, opposing counsel would indeed be an extraordinary measure but it is for this reason that an Evidentiary Hearing would be a more suitable means of fact finding for the pending motion, not competing depositions." Bottom Line : Plaintiff lawyers Andersson and Davis do not appear to have anticipated or prepared for the strong offense from MJ lawyers Possinger and Meyers. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order , Sept. 20, 2023 Lawyers for MJ and 18 Paradise began attempting to schedule a conference with plaintiff lawyers up to Sept. 18. At 9:09 am , Sept. 19 , Matt Davis emailed the other lawyers, stating that Sept. 25 would be a good date for them to meet about confidential documents. Less than an hour later, at 10:00 am on Sept. 19, lawyers for 18 Paradise and MJ Management discovered one of the privileged letters and "other confidential financial documents obtained by the Plaintiffs in discovery..." had been posted on the Plaintiffs' website. At 11:32 am on Sept. 19, lawyers for MJ emailed a cease-and-desist letter to Andersson and Davis, demanding they remove the posts from their website. At 2:30 pm, Sept. 19, Matt Davis responded by email, refusing to remove the posts and justifying why they should remain on their plaintiffs' website. The next day, at 9:41 am, Sept. 20 , Matt Davis emailed the lawyers representing MJ and 18 Paradise, now claiming it was neither he nor David Andersson who had posted those documents but rather, "a few plaintiffs." Mr. Davis added, "David (Andersson) and I have no control over what is or is not posted." Mr. Possinger noted Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis did not deny they had provided the privileged and confidential documents to their plaintiffs. Bottom line : Plaintiffs, why are you taking the fall for your lawyers' decision to post disputed documents on your website? It's obvious they knew these were controversial and you should know better. Verify Website Posting : A computer expert, Tom Granger, was hired by Mr. Possinger on Sept. 19 to determine date and time the confidential documents were posted on the plaintiffs' website. Here are his findings: "Upon investigation I found that the typical spot author and publishing dates were deliberately disabled or removed from the website." "After looking further into this I found the date published for each was still available in their RSS feed..." The 3 posts were published on Sept. 18, between 10:29 - 10:57 pm. Bottom line : Despite attempt on plaintiffs and/or lawyers to hide the time-date of disputed postings, the computer expert found another location for when confidential documents were made public on their website. Disabling the date/time stamp shows they knew it was wrong to post those documents, but did it anyway.  Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order, Sept. 21, 2023 The order was granted Sept. 21 by interim Judge Grochmal, and applied to posts made after the Temporary Restraining Order was granted, as well as posts made by the lawyers and their clients who they represent.

So many changes have happened since July, it would be too much to absorb with one post. Therefore, we have broken up volumes of legal documents into more digestible sections, with today's being #1. But we wanted to begin with one homeowner's view, who is clearly feeling like the rest of us, unsure of when and how this lawsuit is going to end. Many of our website's emails express the same fatigue and frustration while waiting for a resolution that doesn't seem to get any closer. Lady Justice wears a blindfold to show impartiality to the one being judged, holds a scale to signify weighing the evidence, and a sword to symbolize enforcement of the court’s decision after hearing all sides. But I would like to add one more: her ears are uncovered as the court’s rulings are based on testimony and evidence argued before the judge, by the lawyers. Each party in this lawsuit - plaintiffs, managers, and owner - have been represented by lawyers except for one. Can an impartial ruling be truly made without hearing from those who stand to lose the most? For those who will have to live with the decisions made by and for the other parties, but not for homeowners? The plaintiffs were to be our representatives, our voice , but there has not been a single meeting where they asked us what we want from this lawsuit. The intervention was to be our choice in joining the lawsuit or not, but the judge denied it, leaving us without a voice or a choice. Justice for some is not justice for all. Let's Get Started: This update contains quotes from different legal documents which we have dated with names in parentheses to help you follow along. But if your brain starts to feel numb, just scroll to the end where we have 3 general statements about the lawsuit's status. We also added a personal "Note" after some of the quotes to summarize what it means in plain English. From July through September, there were changes in lawyers, unexpected actions, and new hearings including one that was deemed an emergency. In order to understand the context for these current allegations, we need to first look at MJ’s former lawyer’s (Philip Buri) proposal from May, 2023: May, 2023 : Attorney Philip Buri proposed a Supplemental Protective Order for Disclosure of QuickBooks Files which included the following timeline for the General Protective Order in this case (note this is a supplemental order to an already standing general order as seen in the following): Feb. 17, 2021 - The court (Judge Olson) entered a General Protective Order for discovery in this case. May 10, 2022 - Plaintiffs (Davis and Andersson) requested documents which included MJ Management’s electronic accounting data which were not given. July 15, 2022 - Plaintiffs dismissed MJ Management. Jan. 11, 2023 - Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint brought MJ back into the lawsuit and renewed their request for MJ’s electronic accounting data. Mr. Buri (former MJ lawyer) noted in his May, 2023 proposal that the plaintiffs’ request for MJ’s electronic accounting data would, “require production of highly sensitive financial information unrelated to the Homestead.” The court (now Judge Freeman, May 2023) granted Mr. Buri’s proposal and entered a Supplemental Protective Order for the plaintiffs (Andersson & Davis) to choose a Certified Public Accountant to “serve as custodian for the electronic QuickBooks files.” This assigned expert would alone have access for examining and preparing reports, and all his/her work “will be documented and deemed confidential under the Court’s February 17, 2021 Protective Order.” All material would be designated for “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Before plaintiffs’ counsel could disclose any contents of the QuickBooks files, they would need to notify MJ’s lawyers in writing which documents they intended for disclosure. MJ could object but if both sides did not agree, they would present their dispute to the court. Judge Freeman ended his Protective Order with the instruction: “At the conclusion of this case, the expert CPA will erase the QuickBooks files immediately and notify MJ Management’s counsel of its erasure.” The judge's final line: “This Order supplements the Court’s February 17, 2021 Protective Order and does not diminish any protection afforded in earlier Order.” Note: The 2023 Protective Order adds to the original Protective Order established in 2021, both are to be followed and both are relevant. Now for the Lawyers: July 31, 2023 - Jeff Possinger, a business law attorney, was hired by MJ Management to represent Mick O’Bryan and Josh Williams in Homestead’s class action lawsuit. Their former attorney, Philip Buri, withdrew as their counsel June 23, 2023. Mr. Possinger’s co-counsel, Reid Meyers, is an employment attorney as well as a certified mediator . Both are now MJ Management’s legal counsel. July 31, 2023 - 18 Paradise filed partial summary judgment to dismiss the Consumer Protection Act lawsuit (filed in May 2020, alleged RICO and fraud). Per their court document, reasons are: “The main function of the CPA is to protect the public interest…The alleged misuse of funds is between the Plaintiffs and MJ Management, and not the public.” Conclusion: “Plaintiff’s CPA claim must be dismissed as a matter of law because the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the necessary public interest element.” Note: We do not yet have a date for when this motion will be heard. Quotes from Mr. Possinger’s (MJ lawyer) Declaration signed Aug . 30, 2023 : Aug. 1, 2023 - Matthew Davis began emailing “…a series of demands that my co-counsel (Mr. Meyers) and I withdraw from representing the MJ Management Defendants and threatening to bring a motion to disqualify us…” Aug. 16, 2023 - Matthew Davis contacted MJ’s former lawyer, Philip Buri, asking him “…to return $3,500 in sanctions in exchange for not bringing him back into court for purported discovery violations.” Aug. 24, 2023 - Matthew Davis had emailed a local journalist “numerous statements…concerning financial matters concerning the case and more specifically MJ Management. In the email he ( Mr. Davis) stated: ‘Those numbers [referenced in the email] are based on MJ Management’s own accounting records that I will be happy to share.’” On the same date, Aug. 30 2023 , Mr. Possinger (MJ lawyer) filed a Motion to: 1) Disqualify Class Counsel (Davis & Andersson) 2) Impose Sanctions on Plaintiffs and Class Counsel 3) For a Protective Order Mr. Possinger cited the following reasons for his Motion: “This Motion is brought for deliberate violations of relevant Discovery Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct. Violations which included among others: Wrongfully seeking and obtaining privileged communications and confidential information from the MJ Defendants while they were effectively unrepresented; Providing them with legal advice and pressuring them to sign declarations prepared by Class Counsel (Davis & Andersson) under false pretenses; Obtaining confidential records of MJ Management for which a protective order had been requested, and by circumventing and violating the Rules of Civil Procedure in order to accomplish this; taking advantage of unrepresented parties; and Misusing the wrongfully obtained privileged communications and confidential information beyond the scope of the Discovery Rules. This 17-page Motion included information about Lead Plaintiff Scott Hillius texting Josh Williams beginning April, 2023. According to the document, Mr. Hillius told Josh that he and Mick, “…should tell their legal counsel to dismiss them” and that they “are now back on the hook for any liability that is found.” June 12, 2023 - Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis met with Mick and Josh. The following quotes about their meeting are from the same 17-page Motion cited above: “Class Counsel (Andersson & Davis) repeated many of the same messages that Hillius had been communicating to Williams by text during the previous two months…” “Class Counsel (Andersson & Davis) stated that O’Bryan and Williams needed to sign declarations that Class Counsel would prepare. They also made it clear that if the MJ Defendants did not cooperate and dismiss the counterclaims, they would face liability of $15 million dollars which they (Andersson & Davis) would pursue against them personally. They (Andersson & Davis) also told them with Buri (former MJ lawyer) leaving the case, they (MJ) would likely not be able to find new counsel and would be facing an expensive trial.” “With the MJ Defendants back in the case as of January 11, 2023, Class Counsel (Andersson & Davis) resurrected their earlier discovery requests targeting confidential electronic accounting and financial data of the company.” “However, once it became clear that Buri (former MJ lawyer) was exiting the case, Class Counsel (Andersson & Davis) then proceeded to seek this information by directly subpoenaing MJ Management’s bookkeeper, Cynthia Polley." This was seen as bypassing the protections set up earlier by Mr. Possinger since Andersson and Davis’ request for records was done, “without providing the notices that would have allowed MJ Defendants to seek a Protective Order as contemplated by the Discovery Rules (CR 45(b)(2)…” Note: The General and Supplemental Protective Orders now became relevant. Takeaways: 1. Lead Plaintiff Hillius is not representing his class, just his lawyers, and the plaintiffs are now on opposing counsel's radar. 2. The Court takes private, confidential, privileged information very seriously! Plaintiffs are accused of violating and misusing protected documents. 3. Legal battles are growing more intense, with 2 new lawyers filing motions to disqualify plaintiffs counsel. Upcoming hearings for 2023: Oct. 5 - Judge Freeman will hear arguments for determining confidential documents Oct. 25 & 26 - Two half-day evidentiary hearings (witnesses and evidence can be presented) for MJ’s attorneys, Mr. Possinger and Mr. Meyers, to argue their motion for why plaintiffs’ lawyers, Mr. Davis and Mr. Andersson, should be disqualified from this case.

A few intervenors have shared their notes with us, beginning with the most recent developments. We are all tied to Homestead golf course in one way or another, therefore, we should stay informed about events that can impact our Homestead community. These notes include: Last Friday's hearing, status of Homestead golf course, and depositions of MJ, their Accountant, and our Plaintiff Representatives. Although most of us have not had an opportunity to meet, let alone question, our plaintiff representatives' about where they stand on various issues, their depositions provide insightful answers for us to consider. Status of Homestead During June and July, Mr. O'Bryan continued to run the golf course, stating he would leave once new management team was hired. A legal writ from the court was obtained and served to Mr. O'Bryan regarding his vacating the premises by July 31, 2023, 11:59 pm. Mick invited people to a party at the pro-shop, from 5:00 - 11:59 pm. Many attended but by 9:30 pm, most had dispersed. August 1, 2023, the golf course officially closed. Golfing, bicycles, motorized/electric vehicles are prohibited so repairs and restoration can begin. Remember this is private property , just like our own yards, and we need to respect it as such. We wouldn't want trespassers tearing up our lawns. Send checks for maintenance fees, as many of you are already doing, to: 18 Paradise, P O Box 329, Lynden WA 98264 Water has been turned back on (turned off July 29 by Mick) but sprinklers remain manually operated. After Mick O’Bryan returned keys to 18 Paradise, he was granted use of the maintenance shed by the court until Sept. 15th. Unfortunately, equipment is kept there that is needed by the team keeping our Common Spaces green, but this dynamic duo are creative and determined. When you see Jim and Sharon, let them know how much they are appreciated! Court Hearing Friday, Aug. 11, 2023 - A hearing was held regarding 3 motions in our case: Dismiss CPA (Consumer Protection Act) lawsuit filed in 2020 Postpone trial date for Mick O’Bryan’s new lawyer to prepare for trial Address intervenors’ opposition to changing trial date Five lawyers were present: Ben Vandenberghe for 18 Paradise David Andersson and Matthew Davis for plaintiffs Jeff Possinger for Mick O’Bryan Mary Reiten for intervenors (via zoom). Each lawyer argued on behalf of their clients position: Possinger/Mick - for postponing trial date by 6 months to prepare for trial VandenBerghe/18 Paradise - for postponing trial date to prevent negative impact Andersson and Davis/Plaintiffs - against postponing trial date for homeowners so they can have resolution Reiten/Intervenors - against postponing trial date for homeowners to have an end to lawsuit (irony of plaintiffs and intervenors on same side did not escape us) Judge Freeman expressed concern for homeowners now that golf course has closed but acknowledged he legally had to allow Mr. Possinger time to prepare. Mr. Possinger originally requested 6 months but the judge wanted a shorter timeline and Mr. Possinger said he could possibly be ready in 3 months. He would confirm with Judge Freeman once time determined. The judge said our case would be a priority in getting re-scheduled once timeline known. Ms. Reiten requested 18 Paradise be asked to commit to maintaining the grounds while golf course closed, the judge said he was unable to grant that request. When 18 Paradise saw trial date would be changed, they withdrew motion to dismiss the CPA suit. Sitting in courtroom were two intervenors, one plaintiff, and former manager Mick O’Bryan. Approximately 12-15 watched via zoom. Depositions of MJ and Accountant July 20, 2023 - Depositions taken of Mick O’Bryan, Josh Williams (formerly MJ Management), and Cynthia Polley, Birch Bay Accounting. Deposing attorney was plaintiffs’ attorney, Matthew Davis, with fellow attorney David Andersson and Intervenors' attorney Mary Reiten also present. Cynthia Polley Worked with Kemper Sports in 2017, remained when MJ began managing Accounts were commingled prior to 2020 Creation of “departments” for homeowners done in 2020, prior to 2019, there were no “departments” in QuickBooks Reviewed transactions and expenses with Mick O’Bryan, and his recording matched point-of-sale and bank deposits Cynthia explained profit & loss documents as “work in process” as there was ongoing interaction between client and accountants verifying and reporting. Completed documents would be in folder labeled “Final” Cynthia never saw what she would consider a "scandal" in their financials Mick O'Bryan: - Worked at Homestead for 22 - 23 years - When lease terminated (May 31), refused to leave until new management in place - Understood he could not cash maintenance fee checks as of June 1 but also said July 1 during his deposition - Maintenance fee checks have been dropped off at the pro-shop, are being kept in a folder, awaiting someone to pick them up. * Personal note: We heard Mick packed everything into containers and carried them to maintenance shed, but those checks do not belong to Mick. Josh Williams: - Josh and Mick began partnership in 2017 - Josh’s role was to run golf operations, Mick was superintendent of grounds - Homestead was unique due to its Canadian clients and maintenance fees Understood COS fees went to golf course crew to maintain both golf course and COS, but golf course operated from profits, not fees Oct. 2018, Josh accepted general manager position at Loomis Trail golf club, no longer able to work at Homestead. - Dec. 2019, increase of fees approved by their attorney. - MJ asked the City of Lynden for a bond to purchase golf course - Golf course struggled under MJ as they tried to increase number of golfers Josh questioned why he was a defendant in lawsuit since legal partnership and involvement with Homestead were prior to 2020. Neither attorney answered. Depositions of Plaintiffs June 21 and 22, 2023 - Depositions taken of 11 plaintiff representatives by Henry Ross, attorney for 18 Paradise. Mary Reiten, attorney for the Intervenors, was also present, as were David Andersson and Matt Davis for the plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiff Scott Hillius : Lives in Bellingham, owns condo in Homestead When shown 3rd Amended Complaint that dismissed MJ, Mr. Hillius did not recall why MJ was dismissed. Shown 5th Amended Complaint, line 88, which lists allegations against 18 Paradise. Mr. Hillius agreed with allegations, that MJ was an employee, at fault, and plaintiffs were “forced to sue”. Shown Profit & Loss document with significant loss of income. Mr. Hillius said document was “cooked”. Believes homeowners whose property borders COS should pay for maintenance of that COS, otherwise, no one else should pay. Tom Staehr: Lives in Richland, no longer owns property in Homestead Reason for being in lawsuit was due to fee increase. His goal is for fair ruling, accountability, representation for homeowners. Believes homeowners should pay some amount When shown list of allegations in 5th Amended Complaint, he was asked how 18 Paradise collected maintenance fees and not MJ? How did he (Tom) know fees were commingled by 18 Paradise? Mr. Staehr believed the answers were in deposition of 18 Paradise. Asked how ownership of COS was unfair and deceptive by 18 Paradise, Mr. Staehr said per city ordinance. When shown CCR 3.1 regarding declarant can own COS, Mr. Staehr disagreed with CCR 3.1, claiming it was irrelevant. When shown Profit & Loss document with loss of income, Mr. Staehr said it was inaccurate. When asked if he encouraged homeowners to give to legal fund, he replied,“No, it’s voluntary”. Believes a fair outcome would be accounting of fees and COS defined. When asked why he refused mediation, Mr. Staehr said “It was more time and money”. Angelique Scarlett: Lives in Homestead Angelique’s goal is to shed light on practices and fees spent wisely, accountability, and having people treated properly. She cited street lights not being fixed for years as example of not treating people properly. Regarding a fair fee for COS, she believes $36 is too high. Thinks HOA should collect money from homeowners to care for COS, as everyone benefits from COS in Homestead. Her expertise is in finance, when shown P&L financial document ( all plaintiffs shown same documents) she could not explain or see how MJ used/misused funds to buy golf course but knew intuitively wrongs had been committed. She advised Mick to sell golf course to owner of Bellingham Towers. Doug Scarlett : Lives in Homestead Believes $36 is a fair amount for fees Does not benefit from paying fees except for the “hanging flowers” When asked about P&L, he said his wife combed through those documents and he trusts her completely. Thought 2018 storm assessments “suspicious” and mishandled by 18 Paradise. Did not believe MJ was receiving fees, just 18 Paradise. Asked what would be a fair resolution, his reply: “Tree assessments”. Daniel Lyons : Lives in Homestead Goal of lawsuit: control COS and change CCRs, sees current situation as “taxation without representation”. Options: Turn COS over to city of Lynden or have homeowners own it, as all of Lynden enjoys the gazebo. Homeowners should pay fees but control the COS Believes property values would not be impacted if COS gone, he doesn’t use any COS, including street lights. Beliefs based on looking at COS and knowing amount is too high. Did not know 18 Paradise wanted to mediate Sonja Lyons - Lives in Homestead Became involved when “18 Paradise’s agents” held meeting on 12/2019. She became a HOAG member, was also on Board of Directors at their condo. Her issue: exorbitant fee increase of $670,000 per year. Met with Mick who insisted he be recorded, but they were unable to separate COS costs from golf course expenses. Shown 5th Amended Complaint, line 88, which lists “unfair practices”. Attorney Henry Ross referred Sonja to CCR 3.1 about owner possessing COS as that is listed under “unfair practices”. Sonja replied city says something else. Has not paid fees since 1/1/20, does not see this as unfair to homeowners who pay their fees because $25 to $36 was $11 increase over 28 years. Her goal: Owner obeys city ordinances for HOA to manage COS. Recalled emails about mediation but because Scholten “won’t move off revenue stream, why bother”. Ron Saran - Lives in Sedro-Woolley, no longer owns property in Homestead Invited “my good friend” David Andersson to Dec. 2019 meeting. Angry about 7th Amendment as it can potentially lead to other amendments. Believes fair analysis of COS should have been done. Knows increased fee of $93 was unfair based on his brother’s 10 acres in Texas. Brother cuts grass for hay which provided a comparison of cost. Does not need a professional to calculate cost of maintaining COS, "It's simple math." Called himself a “bad witness” but remains class member because “You owe me money” (to attorney Ross) . Admitted he has not kept in touch with other plaintiffs for 1.5 years. City of Lynden should control and maintain storm ponds Shown P&L with income loss, believed it showed “They were terrible business owners.” If people stopped paying, 18 Paradise would have negotiated, wished everyone was not paying While president of condo board, had reserve fund study done. Ms. Reiten asked if it would be good idea for plaintiffs to order reserve fund study, Mr. Saran did not think so due to low replacement value of COS. Against mediation because neither side could agree on definition of “authorize” in the past. When deposition of Mr. Saran ended, his lawyer Matt Davis questioned him, these were his answers: 1. Regarding 6th amendment, Mr. Saran heard storm damage for trees was assessed to homeowners because 18 Paradise failed to get insurance. 2. Asked if he had scrutinized P&L’s or relied on his lawyers to do it, Mr. Saran said he had relied on lawyers (Andersson and Davis) to investigate on his behalf. Steve Zehm - Lives in Homestead Career was director of IT, now retired HOA president at Village@ Garden Green condo, fees are $245/month. At 12/2019 meeting, Mr. Zehm told Mr. Andersson he wanted to be a representative. He saw MJ as agents speaking on behalf of 18 Paradise. $36 is an unreasonably high amount for COS fee, believes 18 Paradise profited from fees. One bid for COS maintenance was from Augusta lawn care, but he did not recall seeing it Believes 18 Paradise and MJ Management are one entity, not two If no fees paid, work could be done by homeowner volunteers. For street lights near his home, he would “work it out” with the city. Reserve fund study is pointless because COS is just mowing grass and gazebo. Would mediate if 18 Paradise conveyed COS and HOA to homeowners, and provided accountability. Knowing 18 Paradise wants to mediate does not change his mind, still refuses to mediate Lisa Zehm - Lives in Homestead Career in customer service for real estate insurance She and husband Steve own 2 condos, HOA fees are $245/month Joined lawsuit when HOAG and neighbors could not negotiate with MJ or 18 Paradise. No opinion if $36 too high/low, hasn’t paid since 2020, does not see this as unfair to other homeowners who are paying fees Goals: Accountability, control fees, determine what’s needed for COS Asked why sue MJ, she replied they were not suing MJ, but 18 Paradise. Mr. Ross showed 5th Amended Complaint listing MJ Management as defendant, she admitted her error. Sees MJ and 18 Paradise as one entity. Did not know what MJ or 18 Paradise did regarding COS, believed fees went to golf course Did not know who increased fees to $93 but believes owner profiting from fees Fees too high for COS based on quotes from lawn care companies. Damaged light poles and neglected park showed funds not going to maintenance of COS. When shown P&L document, she said she has seen several P&L’s, did not know which was correct Ms. Reiten asked Lisa if she thought a reserve study (after explaining what it provides) would be a good idea for Homestead’s COS, Lisa thought it could be. Randy Drubek - Lives in Homestead HOA President at Fairway@Garden Green condo, HOA fees are $375/month Career was in IT, now retired Joined plaintiffs due to fees used for profit, when negotiations with 18 Paradise “hit a brick wall” and gazebo park not maintained. Aug. 2022, saw broken pipe and 2 streetlights always on, near gazebo. Would like independent person to do reserve fund study Agrees homeowners should pay fees for upkeep Compared with past, when there were less people and more land, fees were also less and it was ok. Attorney Ross pointed out there was also less infrastructure back then which meant less maintenance and lower fees. Mr. Drubek believes 18 Paradise profits, not MJ, and 18 Paradise did not let MJ manage When asked why MJ was dismissed, Attorney Andersson objected, said it was privileged information, not for plaintiffs to know Ms. Reiten pointed out Mr. Drubek’s comment of streetlights and broken pipe in COS proved COS was more than just grass. She asked if he knew there were 2 detention ponds in the park to which Mr. Andersson objected, stating there were no detention ponds in the COS park. Mark Mediema - Lives in California since Oct. 2020, owns rental in Homestead Dec. 2019, saw letter regarding meeting about increased fees. Joined HOAG with 18 people to resolve problem. Wants correct fees for COS, representation for changes, COS owned by HOA HOAG met with Josh Williams who informed them 18 Paradise increased fees. $36 is reasonable, but not $93, because nothing has changed since 1992 and there were no problems with $25 fee. He has not paid maintenance fees. Believes P&L financial document showing a net loss, is a lie. Understood reserve study is estimate by 3rd party for replacement costs of assets, including maintenance costs. Thinks reserve study for Homestead would be “silly” but did a reserve study within their own group for lawn care and lights. Could not recall who provided the study. Mediation is appropriate in Family Law but not with 18 Paradise. Mr. Mediema is interested only if Morris Chen is present at mediation. Ms. Reiten reminded him that 18 Paradise is the defendant, not Mr. Chen.

The following was sent from the Lynden Chamber of Commerce to a facebook member on Aug. 4, 2023 in response to their comments on Homestead. There we re some surprises for all of us, but it's very encouraging to know our Chamber had more interest and involvement in our situation than we realized. From: Lynden Chamber of Commerce: To: We removed recipient's name “Perhaps you’re unaware of our early involvement in this case in the direct exploration via legal counsel, as to what is legally required to form a homeowners association, per Washington State Law, which of course at this point is the approval of 100% of the property owners within the area to be designated. Perhaps ask your legal counsel for the information. You also seem unaware of our involvement in getting the majority of the trail system and associated costs transferred to the City of Lynden. You also seem unaware of our involvement in 2008 with a group exploring the purchase of the golf course, the Lynden Regional Parks and Recreation District, at which time it was already common knowledge that, not unlike many golf courses, surrounding properties monthly fees are used by the course to assist in maintaining all the public areas, which includes the hiring of employees, insurance for all common areas, including the privately owned streets, sidewalks, street lights, irrigation systems, and drainage systems, and the electrical bills to power said services. Then there is the cost of the purchase of equipment, the leasing of equipment, storage areas for the equipment, the insurance on the equipment, maintaining the equipment, all necessary to maintain the common areas, etc. and much, much more. An entity can either contract with a company that has all the necessary manpower and equipment, such as has been happening with the golf course, or do it on their own, which is an unnecessary duplication of services. We are very aware of what is going on, and the fact is the case is not to form or take control of a homeowners association, it is about attempting to “win” monetary penalties, with the expectation such proceeds will be divided by legal counsel, the lead plaintiff, and others deemed to have standing.”

Today, July 1st, there is a car show hosted by Homestead Farms and Golf Course. It’s on their website, it’s in texted ads, and it’s on notices sent to multiple car groups on Facebook. At least one pro-lawsuit person posted on their social media that it’s a joke - it is not. Here is what has been confirmed and observed: No permit required : Private events on private property do not need a permit, per Lynden city courthouse, Lynden city administration, and Lynden city police. Civil matter : This is a civil, not criminal, matter per Lynden city police. If criminal activity is reported, they will respond. 150 cars: These are on display, parked on driving range which is compact ground. They are not expected to cause damage per Mick O’Bryan. Parking : Their FB ad states, “This will be the only time you will get to park your car in the middle of a golf course.” Rules : On an ad that included a map of parking and “burnout” areas, was this warning; “No donuts or driving fast on the turf, security will escort you out.” This implies cars will be able to break the rules but once a car has done a donut or sped across the grass, isn’t the damage done? Sponsors : We counted 22 sponsors on the FB ad sent by “Tint Rafa.” Lucky’s Autoshop , another sponsor, parked their truck at Badger entrance. Food Truck & Beer Garden: On driving range. Music: Courtesy of Chihuahua’s cantina tent, can be heard throughout the show. Burnouts: These will take place on pavement in front of maintenance shed, entrance is from Badger Road where Lucky’s truck is parked. If you’re wondering, “burnouts” are cars who spin their tires to create loud noise and large amounts of smoke while remaining parked. Obvious questions: 1.Why not have car show at the fairgrounds? Or casino? Why on a golf course's sensitive, expensive turf? 2. David Andersson has been claiming the golf course is worth $600,000, if there is significant damage to the course, it will decrease in value. Is he involved? 3. Mick O’Bryan has received notice his lease was terminated, how then can he put on this show, on someone else's property? 4. Many attendees brought their dogs, from pit bulls to toy breeds, but pet waste cannot be good for the course's turf.

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.

Many of us sent emails to the plaintiffs named in the anonymous letter sent a few weeks ago. It appears what we wrote was heard loud and clear as the plaintiffs have now issued a response, "Why We Fight." What's sad about this is that the message in our letters was for them to settle, not continue a fight that is harming us and our community. We fear they continue to be more concerned with the lawyers' goals, than their class members' needs. Here are a few of the letters sent to our representatives that we have permission to post: From: Homeowner since 2014 : What was supposed to be two month negotiation has turned into over three years! During that period, neighbors' relations are fractured, potential home buyers have backed out of property sales, common areas, as well as the overall appearance of Homestead have deteriorated and the retention ponds are in increasingly poor shape. Should the Golf Course close, the situation will be worse. Additionally, property values will decline, if saleable, city revenues from the course business. Tourism will be impacted and businesses will be effected by the decline. All for the promise of $25,000 ( the inflation cost of 30 pieces of silver, biblically speaking). A Class Action Lawsuit could go on for years, not counting appeals. Everyone stuck in Legal Limbo. What a mess...and how far reaching. This litigation is harming your neighbors and businesses beyond Homestead...It's harming Lynden! As Plaintiffs, it is within your power to do the right thing for Lynden and your neighbors. END THIS LAWSUIT NOW. From: Homeowner on Golf Course: Yes, you started this lawsuit with good intentions. In Feb of 2020 I sent an email to your committee about the perils of this ligation path (real cost, substantial time) and Jesse assured me you did not intend to file a lawsuit, but that the cost and time would be minimal. He invited us to try negotiating, which was done and Josh agreed to $65 a month. Before this could be put in writing the suit was filed. That ended that. The greed of one party (the golf course) has been greatly superseded by the greed of eleven plaintiffs and your attorneys. They convinced you to chase a payoff (minimum $25K) while running down the golf course (you asked for dues to be sent to attorneys). Your stubbornness has stood in the way of any golf course buyer. By the way, all actions and language used by your attorneys are your responsibility (calling us cockroaches comes to mind). You wanted your payoff. Your acts have disrupted the real estate market: some people have avoided buying in Homestead because of a lawsuit. If the golf course closes it will affect the businesses at Homestead and surrounding city businesses that get revenue from golfers (about half are Canadian). Of the 5760 households in Lynden, 614 (10.6%) are within this community. This suit hurts city revenues and businesses. But you want your payoff. Over 120 residents have not paid any dues in three years. Hundreds more have paid only partially. All of these people can expect liens on their properties (dues owed, attorney fees, and 12% interest) running into many thousands of dollars. Your desire for a payoff impacts your neighbors financially, many of them elderly with limited incomes. When a buyer was found nearly two years ago, you and your attorneys held out for the promised payoff which in the process has hurt so many others. Regardless of the outcome, you can expect to be held responsible for paying attorney’s fees for failed portions of the suit you brought which were dropped (your attorneys sued on your behalf and will escape paying). So much for a payoff. Yes, the city council is being copied as this affects the city's revenues and safety (Flooding threat due to lack of pond maintenance). I am sure you did not intend these results, but now is the time to bring an end to these unintended consequences. Please bring this to a close. Now. From: Homeowner in HOA W e live in Fieldstone Loop on the 10 th fairway. We have resided here since 2012. It is time to end this lawsuit. We have watched as the quality and beauty of the golf course has gone down each year. Regardless of what wrongs were committed in the past, it is time to put those behind us and face the reality of the current state of the golf course. Homestead Golf needs the help of homeowners, and the arguing about paying the $93 fee a month must stop. In reality, this fee is quite nominal for a golf course. There are many needed improvements and these will cost a great amount of money. We have never supported the lawsuit and opted out originally, only to learn we now have no way of opting out. We don’t even know how our voice of opposition can be heard, but we are speaking out. Regarding an HOA, my husband is Vice President of the Fieldstone Homeowners Association. It is not easy to find volunteer members to serve, and there are always various maintenance and other expenses. I do not visualize Homestead homeowners being eager to serve without pay and addressing the many things that will need to be done even in the common areas. Please stop this lawsuit now. From: Retired Law Enforcement Officer Please, Please, Please put a stop to this conflict! This lawsuit started because everyone was mad at Mick. What more damage can you do? Haven't you exacted enough revenge? The Chinese investor and owner of the golf course is a billionaire with multiple interests in different countries He’s obviously a successful man who will not walk away from this with a loss. Your threats don’t intimidate him and he has an inner circle of attorneys and business associates to handle any problems. Your attorneys will not end this as long as they are making money. They don't call Lynden home, they don’t understand the close ties we have or used to have, and they have shown no signs of caring what happens to us unless we go along with what they want. Their motive has been to take advantage of us by taking our money and you’re helping them. The only people you are hurting now are your neighbors and the city of Lynden through loss of revenue. Why are you continuing on this course? Even if you win the trial, the owner will appeal and then the lawyers will ask us to pay for those expenses too! Please ask God for guidance and search your hearts. I know you don't want to hurt us anymore so please do the right thing and end this. It's now in your hands.

W e have received several requests to take a closer look at the numbers claimed by Attorneys Andersson and Davis, as well as their plaintiffs. Let's do the math: 1. Paying 12% late fee . Source : Plaintiffs’ website, FAQ section, regarding if homeowners have to pay 12% interest late fee. Their answer confirms this late fee can indeed be applied but assures homeowners, “Note: 12% interest on $36 would add an additional 36 cents to the monthly fee.” Do the Math : One percent of $36 = 36 cents. Ten percent of $36 = $3.60. Twelve percent of $36 = $4.32. Lying to minimize risk to homeowners after advising us to ignore paying maintenance fees, is irresponsible and dishonest. 2. Promise of $25,000 per home/unit. Source : David Andersson’s letter (April 2020) to homeowners states: “If, for example, the court awarded the maximum amount of $25,000 and there were 600 class members, then the Declarant and Homestead Farms management could be liable for damages of $15,000,000.” The $25,000 applied to “600 class members” are the homeowners. And in order to win $25,000 each, we’d have to be awarded $15 million! This enticement to homeowners continues throughout their documents: Original Complaint , pg. 16: “Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to exemplary damages of three times their actual damages up to $25,000 per violation.” To emphasize that homeowners have been violated, this same page states “hundreds” of homeowners have been injured with the capacity “to continue to injure hundreds more.” How have any of us been injured if the majority stopped paying fees in Dec. 2019? The only real injury has been to our once beautiful golf course as we watch Homestead deteriorate from diverted funds. These claims are again repeated in 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amended Complaints as well as verbal reminders at every Town Hall meeting. 3. Exorbitant Fees. Source : David Andersson’s letter (April 2020) regarding what the lawsuit will cost homeowners (not lawyers). “If we are forced to take the case all the way to trial, the total costs could be in the low six-figures. However, if we have significant contributions from the Parcel Owners, (for example $93 x 500 x 12), there should be plenty of money in the Litigation Trust Fund.” Mr. Andersson’s request that 500 homes pay $93 for 12 months = $558,000. Do the Math : Mr. Davis has criticized Mr. Scholtens’ tiered fees to repair and restore Homestead for homeowners and Lynden. But when his fellow lawyer asks for $558,000 to pay their legal fees so they can win a LOT of money, causing some to have a lien against their home, interest on late fees going back months or years, difficulty selling their home, or potential denial for re-financing. If it’s wrong when management asks for $93/month, it’s just as wrong when lawyers do the same. That’s hypocrisy! 4. Motions for Reconsideration . Source : Under Whatcom County Local Rule 59, a party may file ONE motion for reconsideration to prevent the same arguments being raised again and again, wasting the court’s time. Plaintiff lawyers Andersson and Davis have filed SEVEN Motions for Reconsideration in this lawsuit. Do the Math : No one is above the law, especially those claiming to know the law. 5. Revenue Stream. Source: Letter from Matthew Davis (Dec. 2020) regarding the class action. On page 2, Mr. Davis states: “…owners are now paying $93 per month, which totals $685,000 per year to maintain 9 acres…18 Paradise is pocketing over $500,000 a year of your money as profit.” Do the Math : For revenue to be $685,000, each one of the 614 homes/units in Homestead would have had to pay $93. But within days of receiving the letters about the increase in Dec. 2019, homeowners met with MJ and voted to have representatives from each of our neighborhoods seek a solution. Until we knew what was decided, the majority of us stopped paying any fees and many continue to do so three years later. There was NEVER a time when every home in Homestead paid $93. This number was purposely used to evoke anger against everyone but the lawyers. It’s manipulative and, unfortunately, successful in dividing our community. 6. Petition to Judge Olson to Certify Class Action Source: In October 2020, many homeowners received a letter from plaintiff lawyers with a form to complete if they supported the lawsuit. These were filed in court with Attorney Andersson’s declaration stating they “…do not include any duplicates from the same declarant.” Do the Math : There are multiple duplicates including 13 from Mr. Andersson’s own property manager, singles and couples who signed more than one affidavit, an estate signing on behalf of a pre-lawsuit deceased relative, another with a note stating they were anti-lawsuit but included as pro-lawsuit??? When we subtracted the duplicates, those who are anti-lawsuit, deceased, and no longer owners, the total for supporting lawsuit was closer to 130 instead of 336. 7. Golf Course’s Market Value . Source : Plaintiffs’ website, FAQ section, has a lengthy answer on this topic and ends with: “The legal counsel (Andersson and Davis) has seen estimates that Homestead Farms golf course is worth $600,000.” Where are these estimates? Who provided them? Without documentation to verify this claim, it’s false until proven otherwise. Do the Math : One plaintiff’s condo on our golf course sold for $600,000 in 2022. And now our entire golf course, with 148 acres of scenic views and parks, is also worth $600,000??? The lawyers need to catch up on Lynden market values. 8. Bids for COS Fees. Source: Plaintiffs website, home page, is the following graphic: Do the Math: According to our plaintiffs, several estimates were requested and received from landscaping contractors. Their conclusion was our COS can be maintained if we each pay $8.33 per month, which adds up to $61,375/year. Let’s see if this would be enough for: Replacing Irrigation Pipes in COS One small leak cost $3,000 behind a home (on COS), without an excavator. Many repairs would require heavy equipment with an operator which increases cost. Limbing and Felling Trees Certified tree workers charge an average $21 - $31.00/hour. They require a team and specialized equipment for safety and lowering heavy limbs to the ground. Homestead Park has some very tall trees between a protected stream and homes. Paying Street Lights Electric Bill We’ve heard estimates from both sides which makes the amount somewhere between $25,000 - $30,000 per year. Several lights remain on 24/7. Bringing Street Lights Up to Code A few years ago, we were given an $80,000 - $85,000 estimate to bring street lights’ wiring below ground, up to code. Replacing Street Lights MJ estimated the average replacement for a street light is about $1200. If only half of the street lights needed to be replaced, that would be $127,800 which is far more than the landscapers’ bid of $61,375. HOA Costs: A former HOA president’s estimated operating costs (on the conservative side) for Homestead’s HOA would be $400,000 which included taxes, insurance, and reserve funds. We also checked with a property management company in Lynden who confirmed $400,000 was a “conservative” number for our hypothetical HOA. Repairing/Replacing Timber Bridges From: www.whatitcostnow.com, a wooden creek bridge is $500 - $10,000. Lifespan is 20-50 years, with Homestead’s wooden bridges being 30 years old. Inspection and maintenance costs are $1600 - $3100 per year. Storm Pond Facilities: Within Homestead Park, there are 2 detention ponds, and on the golf course, there are 19 with two pump stations and two weirs. This storm mitigation system has been counted as COS in the past but a jury will decide in Sept. if that is to remain. Of interest, the neighborhoods that drain into these storm ponds are: Homestead Rose Ellen The Park  Woodfield Emerald Green Heartland Harrison Place We talked at length with a nationwide pond management company for estimates and requirements to maintain the ponds. It will require a permit, becomes complicated if any ponds connect with a salmon stream (ours do) and basic maintenance will include dredging (there are several methods) to remove biomass, aeration to increase or maintain oxygen levels, and comprehensive erosion control. In the meantime, why can’t we see these estimates? Who provided them? When lawyers make a claim but refuse to show their class members the evidence to back their claim, what are we left to conclude? They are hiding the truth because it will weaken their claim? Or there is simply no evidence? 9. Golf Course Closure Do the Math : If our community fails to recover from this divisive lawsuit, if the golf course closes after 30 years of being an integral part of our beloved city, if our homes no longer surround a beautiful center of green fairways and blue ponds, we all end up with ZERO!

During the last two weeks, people have received a letter from someone who identified themselves as "an angry homeowner" who is "fed up with this lawsuit that is destroying our golf course." The author snail-mailed this letter to several (or all?) of the neighborhoods within Homestead and thus far, the feedback has been supportive of what "they" (not sure if it was a group or individual) wrote. The tone was both direct and knowledgeable about the issues and websites, which describes many in our community. But the significant difference was a call to action, asking homeowners to let plaintiffs know how they feel about the lawsuit. Five plaintiffs were named along with their email addresses from a "HOAG/Plaintiffs list." We reached out to an original HOAG member about that list, and she explained it had originally included HOA/COA presidents, all the plaintiffs and neighborhood representatives. Therefore, this appears to be a partial list with which we can effectively communicate as a whole. We pray this is a wake up call to our plaintiff representatives as we still hold on to the hope they will put their neighbors ahead of the possibility of winning money. As Mayor Scott expressed, the closing of Homestead golf course will be a detriment to all of Lynden. This is so much bigger than believing we're entitled to a reimbursement for money that most of us never lost! Rather, it's about permanently altering our community, our scenic golf course, our tourism, our reputation as a friendly and safe place to reside. Many have sent emails to both plaintiffs and city council, and we encourage everyone to follow their lead. These plaintiffs are also our neighbors and we need them to make decisions based on our collective best interest. Overgrown fields, collapsing ponds, and lower property values are not. Note: MJ Management/Mick O'Bryan's lease to manage Homestead golf course was terminated May 31st. We've been told the golf course will close June 1st or 2nd, however, Mick O'Bryan has said he will remain until a manager is hired, keeping the course operating. The next few days should bring clarity.

On Friday, April 14th, 2023, the intervention by homeowners to end the class action lawsuit was denied by Judge Freeman. His primary reason was to adopt “the findings and conclusions made by Judge Robert E. Olson.” In other words, Judge Freeman wished to respect Judge Olson’s decision in Nov. 2020 in certifying the class action and trust his reasons for doing so, were valid. But IF the intervention had been allowed, the trial date would still have remained for the plaintiffs, as that was never an issue to decertify the class action. The intervention was to release the homeowners from being mandated class members, allowing them the right to choose if they wanted to be included or not. Judge Freeman also denied the plaintiffs’ motion that Mr. Chen must convey the Common Open Space to homeowners. The judge agreed this was a “Quiet Title” action which clarifies ownership of a property and is often used to protect attempts from outside parties to acquire property in question. If the latter sounds familiar, it’s because this has been the end-game of the lawsuit for years, repeated by plaintiffs’ lawyers, their Complaints, and HOAG (Homestead Owners Advisory Group) updates. A quick review: David Andersson Letter, April 16, 2020 : “The ultimate objective of the legal action is to have the Declarant (owner) convey the Common Open Space to the management and control of the Parcel Owners subject to the Fees.” Original Complaint, May 4, 2020 : “The court should rule that (18) Paradise holds the Common Open Space in trust for the parcel owners, award Parcel Owners damages in an amount to be proven, and order (18) Paradise to relinquish and convey the trust property to the HOA in accordance with the CC&Rs.” HOAG Update 8, May 22, 2020 : “The primary objective is to have the common areas conveyed to an association.” HOAG Update 9, July 28, 2020 : “The goal of litigation is to have Chen cede the COS to the Homestead homeowners, as is provided for in the Master Declaration.” 2nd Amended Complaint, May 2021 : “In addition to awarding damages, the Court should exercise its equitable powers to compel 18 Paradise to transfer the Common Open Space to the Homestead Owners Association.” 5th Amended Complaint, Jan. 2023 : “ Maintaining private ownership of the COS” is listed as a “…separate and distinct violation of the Consumer Protection Act… Pursuant to RCW 19.86.090, plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction for 18 Paradise to cease its private ownership of the COS .” Translation: 18 Paradise cannot legally hold the title to the COS. But with Judge Freeman's ruling to deny the plaintiffs’ motion, this means 18 Paradise IS the legal owner of Homestead, including the Common Open Space, and cannot be compelled or forced to convey the COS to any entity. Which begs the question: since the “ultimate/primary” goal is no longer viable, what strategy remains? For Homestead, the 6th & 7th amendments remain, MJ Management remains,18 Paradise as current owner remains, Common Open Space remains, maintenance fees remain, storm ponds mitigating rainfall remain, the Scholtens’offer remains, and so does a class action lawsuit that removed our choice. If you chose not to be involved, your wish was ignored and you’ve been added to the list of represented class members. If you signed an opt-out letter, that was also disregarded due to it being invalid and you are currently represented by the plaintiffs' lawyers and their class representatives (plaintiffs). In the end, each side lost critical, key points in their motions but the greatest loss for us was Homestead homeowners’ right to choose.

Attorney Matthew Davis and David Andersson have often quoted city ordinance 19.29.020 to purportedly state, "Every PRD shall have a homeowners association." Ordinance 19.29.020 is quoted in their 4th Amended Complaint (pages 2, 3, 9) along with the claim that HNW (Homestead NW) can decide when and if to transfer the Common Open Space to our HOA. However, when we read ordinance 19.29.020 in Lynden's municipal code, it consisted of one paragraph under the title "Scope": "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all single family residential zones, the RMD (Residential Mixed Density) zone and all residential multi-family zones, provided that the project design includes areas of density within the overall project that are consistent with the density allowances of the multi-family zones." We eventually did find the correct ordinance in a letter from lawsuit-supporter, Lynn Button, to Lynden Mayor Scott Korthuis. Enclosed with his letter was a list of 235 signatures addressed to city officials for the following reason: "We petition the City to exercise its power to enforce the Ordinance and the PRD Contract and compel the declarant to complete the formation and organization of the Homestead Owners Association (“HOA”), as required by the Ordinance." Mr. Button referenced several ordinances, with ordinance 19.29.130 being the correct one: "To preserve and maintain community facilities and open space, every PRD or MPRD shall have a homeowner's association and agreements and enforceable covenants to fund and effectively collect funds for such an organization." The 2nd paragraph added more specifics: "Said restrictive covenants shall provide, inter alia (among other things), for the assessment, collection and enforcement of collection of such homeowner's dues as are necessary for adequate maintenance of open space, common grounds and stormwater facilities, any private roads or utilities, and for performance of any other association obligations." So do we have an HOA or not? According to Attorney Matt Davis in his post, "The Truth About Homestead Homeowners Association" on the plaintiffs/HOAG website: "Homestead already has an HOA. It was formed in the restrictive covenants that were recorded in 1992... Whether the owners know it or not, they have an HOA, and they are members." Mr. Davis' statement agrees with our CCRs, Article IV, that we indeed have a Homestead Owners Association. Which brings us back to ordinance 19.29.130 . If every PRD is to have an HOA, and Homestead's HOA has existed since 1992, what are we fighting about? Article IV, Section 4.3: As long as the owner retains ownership of the Common Open Space, our HOA operates "in advisory capacity only" and as an "unincorporated association." And when we read Article IV, Section 4.4.1: " In the event of transfer of the COS to the association..." makes it clear it's up to the owner, not us. So once again, what are we fighting about? 

Homestead homeowners are asking what will the intervention mean for us as a community should it prevail? What we know: The opt-out letters were not valid, everyone was automatically "in" the class action lawsuit, whether we completed a form or not, it didn't matter. This was due to how the lawyers categorized their class action lawsuit. While the legal battle continues, our COS and storm ponds are in need of repair and maintenance, for which the intervention has asked for an injunction. The intervention, if successful, will not stop the lawsuit from continuing on to trial in September, but it will release the class membership from being pulled into the lawsuit without their consent. This will reduce the size of the lawyers' class, from every homeowner in Homestead, to plaintiffs, 2 lawyers, and whoever wishes to remain with them. People will be able to choose for themselves. 6. Intervenors are fighting for Homestead residents' right to consent, to have our choice respected, not ignored.

On Friday, March 17th, 2023, the plaintiffs' lawyers Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis requested Judge Freeman dismiss MJ Management's counterclaim against them for recovery of unpaid fees for Homestead. Judge Freeman denied their motion. Mr. Davis then moved the Court (the judge) to rule that MJ Management was the "real party in interest" if his motion was denied. What this means : For 3 years, there has been an ongoing argument about MJ Management's authority to collect fees, record amendments, sign documents, etc. In Sept. 2020, MJ's attorney Philip Buri quoted the Management & Lease Agreement to Mr. Davis: “18 Paradise delegated its authority to act as declarant to MJ Management.” A few months later, Nov. 2020, 18 Paradise stated, “18 Paradise delegated all rights and duties to maintain the common areas to MJ.” These confirmations continued in 2021, making it clear the parties involved understood 18 Paradise had an “agency relationship” with MJ Management, meaning MJ (the agent) had legal permission to act on 18 Paradise’s (the principal) behalf. In other words, despite MJ Management being authorized to collect fees, plaintiffs' lawyers have continued to claim they did not have that right for 3 years, including at this most recent hearing. After Mr. Davis' motion was denied, Mr. Andersson asked the Court to "stay its Order" (temporarily stop an action or legal proceeding) in awarding fees to MJ's attorney, Mr. Buri. The Court declined Mr. Andersson's request, ordering the plaintiffs to pay fees to Mr. Buri who was to hold the funds for one week. Brief history : May 29, 2020: Lawsuit filed against 18 Paradise and MJ Management by plaintiffs' lawyers, David Andersson and Matthew Davis July, 15, 2022: MJ Management dismissed by plaintiffs' lawyers as part of their 3rd Amended Complaint. Jan. 11, 2023: MJ Management added back into lawsuit by plaintiffs' lawyers in their 5th Amended Complaint

The Intervention : A group of Homestead homeowners have hired an attorney to intervene on behalf of homeowners due to concerns for the ongoing deterioration of Homestead as the lawsuit drags on. The following summary of their Jan. 27th hearing before Judge Freeman is from court documents and transcript. The intervenors' reason is to protect, "...interests that are not currently being met by either party." Specifically, the COS, ponds, and golf course are not being maintained by declarant, and the current litigation "...is contributing to the decline of the property, both physically and monetarily..." The intervenors wish to, "...obtain an injunction requiring Defendant to repair, maintain, and keep up the common open space and the storm water maintenance system serving Homestead." The intervenors seek to move to, "...decertify the class as significant division exists between Homestead members regarding propriety of paying assessments, to whom those assessments should be paid, and to enable current declarant to complete negotiations with a ready, willing, and able buyer of the golf course." We agree with the intervenors that both sides are responsible and our community remains divided. The real tragedy for many of us is that Lynden is known and loved for being a "churched" city, a witness to the difference faith can have on how we live as neighbors and friends. We regularly hear from those who have been steadfastly praying for 3 years, and from those who refuse to be involved anymore because of what they've seen and heard. In 2020, Mr. Andersson told us "the matter could possibly be settled in 2-3 months..." We are now beginning a new year and while some might be willing to wait anothe r 8 months for a trial (scheduled for 9/6/23), we believe most of us would rather move forward with a local owner.  Intervenors' Attorney's Motion to Intervene: Intervenors' attorney, Mary Reiten, specializes in class actions and community associations (HOA, COA) Her Motion to Intervene stated the following: Named representatives (the plaintiffs), "must monitor the conduct of class counsel (lawyers) throughout the litigation. Here, not one of the class representatives submitted a declaration in support of class certification..." 2. MJ Management was dismissed "without a fairness hearing in violation of CR 23 (e)." 3. How the plaintiff lawyers handled MJ's dismissal, "illustrates that this case is about the money, and not the outcome. Intervenors are concerned about the outcome." 4. "Plaintiffs' counsel has encouraged class members to pay them their monthly dues rather than Defendants, siphoning off much needed maintenance funds." 5. Plaintiff lawyers are wrong "when they assert the court has no power to impose a homeowners' association on Homestead. Under CR 23(b)(1) and CR 23(b)(2) the court has that power because no one in the Homestead development can opt out of those classes. Intervenors are opposed to the imposition of a homeowners' association and for this reason alone, intervention is appropriate." 6. A significant number of Homestead members "want this class action to be dismissed." 7. The intervenors cannot opt-out because the class action was certified under three subsections (remedies), two of which are "mandatory" classes. 8. Intervenors who did opt-out remain a part of the class because there are " no opt-out rights within these two mandatory classes." Note : These statements were a surprise to us. The 4-page, opt-out letters sent to 600+ homes in Homestead were not valid ? Who paid the postage for those letters with their enclosed pre-paid envelopes that would have cost hundreds of dollars? And why would plaintiff lawyers send letters offering us the choice to opt-out when there was really no choice? 2. MJ Management's dismissal was done in violation of CR (Civil Rules) 23e? Here is that rule: "A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs." Not only did we not know about MJ's dismissal, it was tucked into the 3rd amended complaint instead of being a separate document - why? Matt Davis' Response to Motion to Intervene: Plaintiffs' attorney Matt Davis' made the following statements in his response to the Motion to Intervene: Intervenors do not have legal standing as most have opted-out, leaving the opted-in members representing only "0.65% of the PRD." The Court should allow intervenors to achieve their goals by opting-out. There are two forms of intervention, both of which require class members who have not opted out. No court order can impose an HOA as they are governed by Common Interest Ownership Act, RCW Ch.. 64.90 Intervenors' timing of this motion was to, "...deprive the more than one thousand class members of the benefit of this action..." To verify this allegation, we reached out to a few of the intervenors and asked when they had hired their attorney; it was Oct. 2022 . And then we checked the date on the Court Order to set trial date; it was Jan. 4, 2023 . Since the intervenors could not possibly have known in October what the court would decide in January, this is pure conjecture. Note : In the plaintiffs 3rd Amended Complaint of July 15, 2022, the lawyers state (line 42): "The class consists of approximately 600 property owners ." 2. In Lynn Button's letter to Mayor Korthuis in July 2021, he claimed, "There are approximately 2,500 residents that are impacted in the litigation, of which over 90% are supportive." Legal documents should contain statements of fact, including the true size of the class being represented; 90% of 2,500 does not equal 600 or 1,000. The Hearing : On Jan. 27th, intervenors and their attorney, Mary Reiten, attended a hearing before Judge Freeman. Based on the transcript, Mr. Davis argued the intervenors merely disagreed with the lawsuit, which did not give them a legal interest or standing. Ms. Reiten responded that every class action has dissenters but plaintiff counsel had shown no interest in talking with those who opposed them. Each reiterated their respective motions as summarized above, and Judge Freeman ruled to allow the intervention. Trial Date : Matt Davis expressed concerns their Sept. trial date would be delayed or removed by the intervention. Mary Reiten stated the intervenors were not asking to change or remove the trial date but the plaintiffs, if they felt they needed more time to prepare, could request it. Judge Freeman told both sides the trial date was set, and the intervention would be allowed "across the board." Judge Freeman then gave a detailed explanation about his decision to deny plaintiffs' counsel request to exclude storm ponds from common open space. Here are two of his statements: "I do believe that there is extensive extrinsic evidence that a stormwater system was contemplated in the creation of this community." "The stormwater system is clearly tied into the original plan for the community." Regarding his decision to deny their request and determine if storm ponds remain as COS, he said, "...it's a question of fact for the jury to decide."

Since the topic of an HOA continues to be brought up in every meeting and update, we asked a former HOA Board president of a 300+ home community to provide a conservative estimate of volunteers and number of hours to run an HOA well. We then identified three HOA's within Lynden, but outside of Homestead, to compare fees and expenses. There were actually a few surprises. Below is an estimate of the size of a proposed board and the number of hours required to run the association with committees. The question we need to ask: Are there enough people in Homestead that will step forward to manage these functions? These are conservative numbers considering the Board and Committees must process requests and quotes, meet and talk to the property management company, attorneys, vendors, and Homestead management. There is a minimum of 2 people per committee to ensure no single person is making important decisions on their own. And there is no less than 7 board members based on size of our community and need for an odd number of board members. Estimated HOA Board Size Number of Members Hours/Month/Person Total Hours/Month Minimum 7 board members 7 7 49 determined by number of homes & number of committees required Committee Assignments Landscaping : Manages contractors, 3 10 30 repairs, budgets, quotes HOA Architectural: 76-100 arch requests 5 30 150 per year; painting, roofs, landscaping, estimated at 6-8 per month Budget: Plan annual budget, may 5 2 10 include reserve studies & investments Publications: Create newsletter & 2 5 10 manage website Annual Meeting: Plan meeting, 3 5 15 create agenda including upcoming major projects, each board to present reports, send notice to members Legal: Work with lawyers on liens, 2 10 20 collections, lawsuits, etc. Total Volunteer Hours per Month: 284 We spoke with members from the three HOAs outside Homestead, for comparison. Two of the HOA's have companies (Windermere and Porchlight) managing specific responsibilities (paying bills, collecting fees, budget, financial reports, organizing meetings, monitoring code violations, insurance and reserve studies) which the members said they preferred. Following are their basic stats: A 30-home HOA off of Double Ditch Rd - Monthly fee $178 for lawn care which includes property management ($6,000/year). One meeting per year, members said they vote to accept minutes, but did not recall being asked for suggestions for budget. A 24-home HOA off of Aaron Drive - Monthly fee $80 for lawn care only (no property management), same person has run Board for years, annual meeting, and the members we spoke with had never seen a budget or heard about elections. 40+ home HOA in northwest Lynden - Monthly fee $85 for lawn care, playground, snow removal, and property management. Bi-annual meetings. We also called each property management company and they were very helpful in explaining the services provided, allowing each HOA to customize what they needed to follow state laws. If you're curious about those laws, click this link: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=64.38 Our purpose for this post is to remind all of us that having an HOA is not as simple as we're being told. It's going to require a willingness to collaborate and compromise to choose wisely in protecting our properties. We will also need an informed, majority vote on what type of representation will work best for Homestead as many of us have not had a positive experience with HOA's. Bottom line: We live here, this is our home, let's not rush into this very important decision! Nor allow someone who does not live here, decide for us.

Following the previous post, Trial Date Update, attorney Matthew Davis made comments via facebook which we have quoted as "Claim #" and then compared with legal documents and articles. You are invited to also decide if these are true or false. Claim #1 :  "Any lawyer worth a damn will make every effort to avoid litigation and will file a lawsuit only when absolutely necessary ." From March - April 20, 2020, three options were before the HO AG (Homeowners Advisory Group): Mediation - Opposing parties meet with neutral person who assists with negotiating their differences. Arbitration - Parties agree to one (or more) arbitrators who make a binding decision on their dispute. 2018 RCW Law for HOA/COA's - This law includes homeowners voting on their annual budget. Each of these was considered by the HOAG on behalf of Homestead homeowners, with the 3rd option presented by Seth Woolson, a real estate lawyer (HOAG Update #6, April 2020). Mr. Woolson explained that applying the RCW law would take a few months as compared to a class action lawsuit that would take years. Unfortunately, not one of these options was implemented, making Mr. Davis' statement false, as the lawyers did not make "every effort" (or any effort?) to avoid litigation. Claim #2 : " The defendants have consistently resisted setting a trial date. " Aug. 29, 2022, Motion for Trial Scheduling Conference - The following quotes are from plaintiff lawyers' document they authored, signed, and filed in court, which was attached to email. On page 2, lines 18-20 in the legal document, Mr. Davis included a quote from one of 18 Paradise's two attorneys, stating: "However, by my count, there are at least 3 dispositive motions pending and we need the court's input on what claims remain before we prepare for trial . We simply don't see how it makes any sense to set a trial date when a substantial portion of the remaining claims are hanging in the balance." Explanation : The "court's input" means the judge's decisions. A "dispositive" motion is meant to "dispose" of the case or portions of it, in advance of the trial. The defendant lawyer is explaining that with "at least 3" outstanding motions for the judge to still rule on , and without knowing what the judge will decide on any of these, how can they adequately prepare for trial? Preparing for trial is a massive expense in time and money, with hiring experts, preparing witnesses, and knowing in advance which strategies will be used for which arguments. But most important, their own document clearly shows it's not the defendants who are holding up the trial, but the judge , so this claim is false. Why didn't Mr. Davis just say so? Claim #3 : The Chamber of Commerce's study is not a true study because it opposes all lawsuits against businesses. Let's agree to disagree on this organization's advocacy for American businesses (which we support) and quote another empirical study of class action lawsuits done by Jones Day, a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 42 offices across five continents. Here are their findings with link below: "Our Jones Day White Paper published in April 2020, " An Empirical Analysis of Federal Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements (2010–2018) " analyzed data showing that lawyers—not class members—frequently are the ones primarily benefitting from monetary settlement awards. The new data show that: Typically only a small fraction of class members receive any monetary benefits from the settlements; After the amendments to Rule 23, some courts continue to approve class action settlements without key data about take rates; In claims-made settlements, class members as a whole receive on average less than 30% of any monetary award. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2021/07/update-an-empirical-analysis-of-federal-consumer-fraud-class-action-settlements-(20192020) Mr. Davis added, "class action settlements totaled over $4 billion in 2020" which seems to imply class members win big in class action lawsuits. We checked class action settlement totals after 2020 and found they've been decreasing, with $1.8 billion in 2021, and $1.4 billion in first half of 2022. But according to the studies by Jones Day law firm above, these big numbers are only relevant to the lawyers who remain the primary winners of settlements, not class members. Claim #4: "Why do you say that Tom Staehr is the director of our HOA? There is no HOA. Tom Staehr has no power." Our answer is another question: Why does the Attorney General's office for the state of Washington have an HOA (or what you call a "non-profit corporation" named "Homestead Owners Association") filed in their office? And why is David Andersson listed as "Registered Agent" and "Governor" with Tom Staehr's email under "Principal Office?" Why has this "non-existent" HOA been renewed each year since 2020 by David Andersson and Tom Staehr, requiring them to send money to the Attorney General's office? You're claiming Mr. Andersson filed and paid for "just an idea" in January 2020? Were you present at the HOAG meeting when Mr. Andersson informed everyone in the room he had filed an HOA on their behalf, saying, "I paid your $50, you're welcome." This claim is false as Mr. Davis, in his own opt-out letter of Dec. 2021, said, "...and if you own Homestead property, you already are a member of the HOA." But in 2022, there is now no HOA???

In June 2021 , Tom Staehr and plaintiff attorneys Davis and Andersson were interviewed by Cal Bratt for the Lynden Tribune. Here is a quote from that article: "The attorneys said that after filing the amended complaint, next steps for the suit are to ask for a trial date to be set..." At m eetings in 2022 , both attorneys repeated their intent to ask Judge Freeman to set a trial date for "Feb. or March, 2023." And according to court records, they did file a motion to set a trial but that motion was "stricken" (removed, canceled) on Sept. 16, 2022. As of today, there is NO trial date set in this case for 2023. For those of you who like to do research, the Institute for Legal Reform resolves excessive lawsuits filed against American businesses. In 2009, they began a random study of class action lawsuits, here are their findings and a link if you would like to read more. Do Class Actions Benefit Class Members? An Empirical Analysis of Class Actions This empirical study of class action litigation—one of the few to examine class action resolutions in any rigorous way—provides strong evidence that class actions provide far less benefit to individual class members than proponents of class actions assert. In our entire data set, not one of the class actions ended in a final judgment on the merits for the plaintiffs. And none of the class actions went to trial, either before a judge or a jury. The hard evidence shows that class actions do not provide class members with anything close to the benefits claimed by their proponents, although they can (and do) enrich attorneys . https://instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/media/Class-Action-Study.pdf

Remember May 4, 2020 ? That's when a Summons & Complaint was sent to Mr. Chen, 18 Paradise, City of Lynden, MJ Management and two investment companies that would eventually be dropped, along with all but one of the defendants. On page 9 of that original Complaint, it states that 18 Paradise had not obtained consent from the City to "its Sixth Amendment to the CC&Rs" and "its Seventh Amendment to the CC&Rs." Dec. 13, 2020 - Mr. Andersson sent a legal update, stating, "...we will file a motion for Summary Judgment requesting that the Court find the 6th and 7th Amendments void on several grounds. We anticipate this hearing will also be set for Jan. 2021." Feb. 1, 2021 - This document had a few ending statements that certainly raised a few questions , for example, "...Plaintiff Homeowners appear to be equally in violation of the code they complain the Declarant has violated by entering the Sixth and Seventh Amendments." Now fast-forward to Sept. 22, 2022 - An order for Partial Summary Judgment by Judge Freeman, after weighing declarations, deposition and replies, stated: "...the following facts have been established by undisputed evidence and are established in this action as a matter of law: MJ Management acted as the agent of 18 Paradise under the 2017 Lease Management Agreement between them. MJ Management's execution and recording of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Homestead Declaration of Covenants was within the general scope of the agency relationship formed under the Lease Management Agreement. The Lease Management Agreement required MJ Management to obtain 18 Paradise's express permission before signing and recording the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Declaration. MJ Management failed to obtain 18 Paradise's express permission before signing and recording the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Declaration. Plaintiff lawyers have requested clarification for #4 but otherwise, it appears nothing has changed since May 2020, our time and money have not moved the needle one iota regarding these Amendments. If 2.5 years of lawyers arguing motions before two judges could not move us forward, isn't it time we take a chance on someone who is local, accessible, and invested in our communit y ? Who is motivated to work with us to ensure Homestead thrives? We don't want to end up like the homeowners of Eaglemont who now face a legal battle, rapid deterioration of their once beautiful golf course, and deep regrets. 

Simple definition of a Complaint: "A plaintiff's list of claims against the defendant." On July 15, 2022, the original Complaint (May 2020) was amended a 3rd time and included the dismissal of MJ Management from the class action lawsuit. About a month later, the Complaint was amended a 4th time and Mr. Andersson explained at the Aug. 25 meeting it was "common" to amend Complaints during lawsuits. But apparently the 4th Amended Complaint had un-common problems because it was dismissed Sept. 16, 2022. The 3rd Amended Complaint is now the plaintiffs' standing Complaint. For the curious as to why this turn of events began and ended so quickly , we attached the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss 4th Amended Complaint, as well as the first page of 18 Paradise's reply dismissing this amendment , to the email you received. If you would like to see the entire reply from 18 Paradise, let us know. We encourage all to question and researc h, which takes more time, but it's how we can move forward with confidence that we verified before deciding, not the other way around.

Attorneys David Andersson and Matthew Davis held an outdoor Town Hall meeting in front of the gazebo in Homestead Park, to update homeowners on the current lawsuit against 18 Paradise. Plaintiffs Lisa and Steve Zehm introduced themselves and then various people summarized the history, reasons, and actions in regards to the lawsuit for over an hour. Mr. Andersson explained he had filed an HOA for Homestead as a placeholder in 2020 but always planned to transfer the HOA to plaintiffs Tom Staehr and possibly another plaintiff? Mr. Andersson’s Updates and Q&A (paraphrased) Within a month, a judge will decide if the 6th and 7th amendments are illegal. We are hoping to have a trial date by Feb. or March 2023 but nothing is certain. The city maintains the asphalt paths and bridges in Homestead Park. MJ Mgmt was dismissed because Mr. Chen was “hiding behind them.” (many questioned if it simply didn't come down to deepest pockets) If someone wants to opt-out, that is up to Judge Freeman Q&A: Homeowner listed what the maintenance fees pay: repairs for things like the leaking irrigation pipe of storm pond water that was now a muddy mess near utility post, liability insurance, lights, landscaping, trees, gazebo, signs, sidewalks, most of which is COS. He disagreed the fees were just for mowing grass in Homestead park as the HOAG website claimed and asked who would fix these if golf course closed. Q: If the golf course goes into foreclosure, would that be an opportunity for homeowners? A: Yes, it would be a great opportunity for homeowners to buy at a low price. Q: Can this lawsuit be dropped? A: If lawsuit ends, Mr. Chen will sue Mr. Andersson for legal fees, therefore, we’re in this lawsuit for the long-term. Q: Can you (Mr. Andersson) show us how the trust fund works? A: When someone pays into trust fund, then he will show how it works. Mr. Davis’ Updates “Golf courses are supposed to be self-sustaining” This statement was met with very strong disagreement by a group of people but they weren’t given a chance to say why. We tracked them down and here are their reasons: They have experience with other golf course communities and each had fees How golf course communities thrive can vary, based on residents’ priorities Sudden Valley monthly HOA fees are $144 for homes, $600 for condos HOAs have supplemented courses, article from golf property analysts https://golfprop.com/uncategorized/hoas-and-their-golf-courses/ Examples of HOA fees: https://www.desertluxuryproperties.com/golf-communities/ Average fees: $600-800/month. Also check FL and AZ courses. "Mr. Chen cannot close the golf course” People disagreed, we asked them why: Each had called and talked with a city employee, was told Mr. Chen, or any other business owner, can close their business if they chose. The City’s contract with owner is to maintain storm ponds only, not to keep their business open. Mr. Davis announced he had “deposed a representative of 18 Paradise" and read eight questions aloud from the deposition, with their brief responses. Note: Since a small group of homeowners are paying for these court expenses, and depositions can cost thousands of dollars, we wanted to provide the background for this deposition so you can decide if your money was well spent: The “representative” deposed was Raymond Chou, General Manager of the Morrison Group. This company, headquartered in Vancouver B.C., invests in banking and real estate according to their website. Here’s a paper trail that led to Mr. Chou being deposed by Mr. Davis: 9-25-2020 - Mr. Chen’s attorney, Ben Vandenberghe, informed Matt Davis, “MJ had the authority to manage the course and common areas…” 9-28-2020 - MJ’s attorney, Philip Buri, quoted the Management & Lease Agreement to Mr. Davis: “18 Paradise delegated its authority to act as declarant to MJ Management.” 11-6-2020 - Eighteen Paradise stated in response to Motion, “18 Paradise delegated all rights and duties to maintain the common areas to MJ.” 1-11-2021 - Mr. Raymond Chou’s Declaration stated, “Pursuant to the Lease, 18 Paradise intended to delegate declarant rights to MJ regarding the common open space.” 11-12-2021 - MJ Management stated in response to Motion, “It is also undisputed 18 Paradise delegated the declarant’s rights and duties to MJ.” These documents and communications from 2020 - 2021 make it clear the parties involved understood 18 Paradise had an “agency relationship” with MJ Management, meaning MJ (the agent) had legal permission to act on 18 Paradise’s (the principal) behalf. 7-15-2022 - MJ Management is dismissed from the lawsuit 7-29-2022 - Mr. Davis deposed Raymond Chou (via videoconference) to apparently determine (again?) MJ’s authority as an agent of 18 Paradise. The final document was 102 pages, most were not available to the public. What we could view had questions and answers nowhere near as concise as Mr. Davis’s eight-question summary. Nearly all the questions had an objection from defendant’s counsel, therefore, we look forward to hearing each sides’ evaluation of the complete transcript. Meeting Interrupted At one point, when people disagreed on issues, Lisa Zehm informed the audience the meeting could not continue unless everyone remained respectful. Later, a woman named Angelique said she “felt ill” when one group pointed their finger at another group. We appreciated what they said, it’s not easy to do, but we wondered where were they on April 21st when Mr. Davis was shouting and mocking people for asking questions he did not agree with? Many of us also “felt ill” at his bullying but not one plaintiff reminded Mr. Davis to show respect to his own class members. When people commit to being a leader or plaintiff, we should agree the same standard applies to all. Both sides agreed: End the lawsuit Standard HOA or hybrid for representation Duane Scholten will be an ideal owner, the lawyers agreed. Amend CCRs Glitch: None of these can happen until lawsuit ends, and according to Mr. Andersson, that's’s not going to be any time soon.

CIT Y OF LYNDEN ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT Scott Korthuis, Mayor February 17, 2022 Lynn Button, Representative Homestead Petitioners 8856 Depot Road, Unit B Lynden, WA 98264 RE: Homestead Residents Petition to the City of Lynden Dear Mr. Button and the Homestead Petitioners: This letter is written in response to the petition which you submitted to me and the Council on July 29, 2021. To date the City has declined to comment on the petition as the issues raised are part of an active lawsuit in which the City was a party. However, on February 4, 2022, the court dismissed the City as a party to this lawsuit. Please accept the following as a response from the City regarding the concerns of the petitioners. City Response to Petition The petition raises 11 points which are transcribed below with a corresponding City response. 1. The petition states: "The Developer/Declarant never created a homeowner's association as required per Planned Residential Development Ordinance 19.29.020, and the Lynden Municipal Code19.29.130." City Response : It appears that the Council and City Attorney, at the time of approval, deemed this aspect of PRD code fulfilled. The Homestead Planned Residential Development (PRD) agreement consistently references a homeowners' association (HOA) and their anticipated responsibilities. Likewise, staff reports and meeting minutes also reference the anticipated HOA. Corresponding to the PRD agreement, Article IV of the City-approved master covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs) is titled "Owners Association" and Section 4.1 specifically states, "There is hereby established an Owners Association to be known as the "Homestead Owners Association". However, the role of the group was clearly limited. Section 4.3 describes: "So long as the Declarant or its successors or assigns other than Parcel Owners retains ownership of the Common Open Space, the Association shall operate in advisory capacity only to the Declarant. During the time the Association shall operate as an unincorporated association. " (Emphasis added) This section goes on to detail the structure of the advisory, unincorporated owners' association. The wisdom of the structure may be debated, but the intent was clear. The Homestead Owners Association was "established" in this document, and its role was intended to be purely advisory to the Declarant until such time as the ownership of the common open space is conveyed to the Owners Association. Neither the PRD agreement nor the Master CCRs include a deadline for the transfer of ownership of the common area or the incorporation of the group when the Owners Association would assume more authority. In the meantime, the build-out associated with the Homestead plan spanned many years and during that time the Declarant, Homestead NW, and then its successor has retained ownership of the common areas and retained control over modifications to the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs). Your petition calls for City enforcement. However, the City did not become involved in this issue for at least two reasons. First, according to the original approved Master CCRs, a homeowner's association was established (although only advisory). Second, the Homestead PRD appeared to function smoothly from 1992 until recently in 2020, when complaints were raised by homeowners. The City found no cause to interfere when, for 28 years, the neighborhood was, by all appearances, functioning well with no complaints. Today, Homestead's Master CCRs would not be approvable under state law. The Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (WUCIOA), adopted in 2018 and amended in 2019, would not allow a homeowner's association to be indefinitely relegated to an advisory role. In fact, under current law the declarant's responsibilities must be turned over to a property owner run homeowner's association upon the sale of 75% of the lots. Moreover, staff found that specific deadlines for transfer to property owners were included in subsequent PRD agreements approved within the City of Lynden. Nonetheless, the above WUCIOA requirement did not exist at the time Homestead was established and few of WUCIOA's provisions may be applied retroactively. And subsequent PRD agreements approved by the City do not affect the Homestead CCRs. The City does not have the right to unilaterally revise CCRs approved 30 years ago. 2. The petition states: "The common areas for the Homestead PRO were never defined as required per PRO Ordinance 19.29.120 and 19.29.130, and LMC 19.29.090". City Response : The City is unclear as to the meaning of this statement. Staff research indicates that the Homestead PRD included platted common areas as well as private streets and walkways. Additionally, the original CCRs, which were approved by the City and recorded in 1992 under Auditor File No. 920624017, address common open space in Section 1.3.8, Article III, and Exhibit B. 3. The petition states: "A final PRO agreement was never approved by the City of Lynden as required per PRD Ordinance 19.29.060" City Response: The City Council approved a final agreement on July 27, 1992 to which the city attorney attested and the mayor signed. This document was used as the basis for development within the Homestead PRD for more than two decades. Additionally, the PRD code at that time allowed the Public Works Director the discretion to approve a PRD's final plan if it met minimum requirements and was deemed "sufficiently consistent with the preliminary development plan" (LMC 19.29.060(B) (1992)). The document in question was labeled as "preliminary." However, the intent and the subsequent actions taken, including numerous permits approved under the watch of the Public Works Director, indicate this label is an uncorrected scrivener's error and the PRD agreement was clearly considered final. Even if it were not a scrivener's error, the preliminary plan was consistently treated overtime as the final plan. 4. The petition states: "Neither a Preliminary or a Final PRD agreement was recorded with Whatcom County as required per PRD Ordinance 19.29.150, and LMC 19.29.100. City Response : Agreed. For reasons unknown, the final PRD agreement was not recorded with the Whatcom County Auditor's Office. However, failure to record the document does not invalidate the approval of the City Council. 5. The petition states: "Privately owned land has been designated as common open space without meeting the requirements of PRD Ordinance 19.29.090. D." City Response : The Lynden City Council and the Public Works Director in place at the time of approval found that the Homestead PRD agreement and Article lll-"0pen Space" of the CCRs sufficiently addressed the three points listed under the 1992 version of LMC 19.29.090(D) and about 8 acres of property was designated as open space. Specifically, "privately owned land may be designated as common open space if the owner of such privately owned land: 1. Provides assurance satisfactory to the Public Works Director that the opens space will be maintained in perpetuity and will only be used for the purposes intended as a part of the PRO. 2. Establish a formula for the assessment of maintenance dues by the homeowners and rules whereby the common land may be turned over to the homeowners. 3. Reduce these provisions to writing, which must be approved by the Lynden City Council in advance." LMC 19.29.090(0) per Ord 905 (1992) 6. The petition states: "Amendments to the CC&Rs (including amendments 6 and 7) were never reviewed and approved by the COL as required by the PRD Preliminary Agreement (PRD Agreement) Sect. 17, and LMC 19.29.130" City Response : The City understands that the validity of the 6th and 7th amendments remain a live subject in the pending lawsuit and notes that on February 10, 2022, Judge Freeman entered an order denying plaintiffs summary judgment motion seeking to invalidate the 6th amendment. Unfortunately, the language is somewhat nebulous in both LMC 19.29.130 and the Homestead PRD Agreement. In 1992, LMC 19.29.090 allowed for a designee of the City Council to review and approve. The PRD Agreement language states the City must give "consent". Neither account outlines the path or process for "approval" or "consent" whether by Council action or otherwise. Documentation from 1992 and subsequent years does not give us a clear picture of how the City may have given "consent" to modifications to the CCRs. We do know that code, at that time, gave the Public Works discretion to administratively approve modifications to PRDs as long as they did not significantly alter the character of the project. Modification to the CCRs may have received administrative consent from a Council designee without a clear record of the modification being created and preserved. For the more recent changes to the CCRs in the 6th and 7th amendments, no formal consent was obtained from the City of Lynden. Planning Director Heidi Gudde recalls that representatives of the Declarant met to discuss the assessment increase reflected in amendments 6 and 7. Although the City, by no means, would consider that discussion an approval of the amendment, it could have been interpreted, by the Declarant as consent. We also know that the structure of the Homestead PRD gave the Declarant unilateral ability to modify CCRs. In 1992 the City Council approved Section 8.2.1 of the Master Covenant which states that: "So long as the Declarant retains ownership of the Common Open Space the Declarant specifically reserves for itself, its successors and assigns the absolute, unconditional right to alter, modify, change, revoke, rescind or cancel any and all of the restrictive covenants contained in this Declaration or hereinafter included in any subsequent Declaration provided that nothing herein shall prejudice or otherwise impair the security of any mortgagee of record as to any lot or parcel. Within forty-five (45) days after any such change in the Declaration the Declarant shall provide written notice of the change to Parcel Owners." As we consider City "approval" or "consent" of modifications it is vital to keep in mind the purpose of City review of a CCR document. The City's goal is to ensure consistency between the development standards outlined in the PRD agreement and those appearing in the CCR document. For example, if the agreement called for a specific landscape buffers or maximum building height it is important that the CCR document does not provide a conflicting standard or one that does not meet City code. The City's role and the purpose behind any consent requirement for CCR revisions is not to review or second guess the modification of maintenance assessments. The City is not party to the associated costs of private common areas, streets, and stormwater facilities, nor does it have a role in the audit of such expenses. In short, it is not the City's legal responsibility to review CCR revisions of private assessments. The City reviews CC&R changes only for consistency with City development standards. 7. The petitions states: "Being that there is no established Homeowners Association accepted by the COL, the COL has failed to enforce the responsibility of the golf course owners to provide private street cleaning, maintenance, snow removal and storm drain maintenance as required per the PRD Agreement Section 14." City Response : The City disagrees with this characterization. The Homestead PRD agreement and CCRs approved in 1992 indicated that the City accepted the HOA structure as proposed. That is, an unincorporated HOA that had an advisory role until the conveyance of common open space was executed. Article IV of the CCRs provide detail as to the formation and voting structure of the Owners Association. The City is not subsequently obligated to ensure this group is formed or enforce a requirement for this group to meeting as this is a private function under the development's CCRs. The PRD agreement is an agreement between the City of Lynden and the PRD developer. The PRD agreement outlines areas of the Homestead PRD which are to be privately maintained rather than maintained by the City. The intent of these sections is to clarify that the City will not perform the maintenance or cover associated costs. Unless otherwise agreed by the City Council, the City has not performed these functions. Failure to perform maintenance of private streets or common areas to the standard of the Homestead homeowners are not enforced by the City of Lynden but must be addressed as a breach of the CCRs and a private dispute between the Declarant and the homeowners. 8. The petition states: "Being that there is no established Homeowners Association accepted by the COL, the COL has failed to enforce the responsibility of the golf course owners to provide maintenance of all trees planted along private and public streets within the PRO per the PRO Agreement Section 14. City Response : The City is not obligated to ensure that the Owners Association is formed or holds regular meetings as this is a private function under the development's CCRs. Failure to maintain street trees to a standard desired by the homeowners must be addressed as a private dispute between the Declarant and the Owners Association. The City will not enforce private CCRs. However, if a failure to maintain street trees begins to violate the Lynden Municipal Code (LMC) or the City's Engineering Design Standards then it becomes a violation enforceable by the City. The City, has in the past, worked with the Declarant's agents to correct issues that were violations of the City's code including those related to trees and brush clearing. 9. The petition states: "Homestead PRO owners have been denied the opportunity to elect to have The Uniform Common Ownership Interest Act (CIOA) apply entirely as required by RCW 64.90.095" City Response : The Homestead CCRs clearly allow unilateral control by the Declarant until such time the common open space is conveyed to the Owners Association. The proffered argument is one between the PRD owners and declarant's successors. The City has no authority to decide such private disputes. 10. The petition states: "Homestead PRO owners have been denied the opportunity to adopt a budget as required by RCW 64.90.095." City Response : See response to no. 9 above. 11. The petition states: "Homestead PRD owners have been denied the opportunity to determine assessments for common or specifically allotted expenses as required per RCW 64.90.080(1) andRCW64.90.525." City Response : See response to nos. 9 and 10 above. For the reasons set forth above, in response to the first four (4) of seven (7) petition requests (those made to the City), the City respectfully declines to take the requested actions. It can be useful to research past actions, and we have done so here. However, in this case, the City firmly asserts that looking forward, rather than backward, is the most productive approach. That the Homestead PRD CCRs would not be consistent with state law today, or that the City would not approve them today, makes little difference. We must look for the best solution under the current conditions. The City of Lynden fully supports the Homestead homeowners in their desire to have representation through an incorporated homeowner's association. The City is also fully supportive of the future success of the Homestead Farms Golf Course. Its attractive appearance and top-notch reputation benefit every homeowner within the Homestead PRD as well as the City of Lynden. To see the golf course fall into disarray or financially fail would be detrimental to us all. Remedies: The City recommends consideration of the following steps to achieve a remedy to the current situation: • Formation of the unincorporated, advisory Owners Association according to the structure outlined in Article IV of the Homestead CCRs. • Incorporation of the Owners Association to establish the group as a non-profit corporation (or equivalent entity). • Execution of an agreement with the Declarant which will convey the ownership of the common open space to the incorporated HOA. The City recommends that this agreement, at a minimum will: o Provide an estimate of maintenance costs associated with the residential component of the Homestead PRD including common open space, private streets and walkways, street trees, and stormwater facilities. o Provide for a short transitional time during which agents for the Declarant has an opportunity to evaluate and discuss with the Owners Association short and long- term maintenance needs before establishing a corresponding assessment. o Recognize the benefit that a well-maintained, functioning golf course has for all Homestead homeowners. Benefits include increased property values, aesthetics, and recreational opportunities such as golfing and walking paths. o Incorporate a tiered assessment of properties depending on their type and location whereby condo owners would be assessed differently than detached single-family homes and homes with golf course frontage would be assessed differently than homes without golf course frontage. o Revoke CCR amendments 6 and 7 and assume that, if assessments are due, they are equal only to the previous assessment until such time a new assessment can be established based on documented costs associated with the residential portion of the Homestead PRD and any recognizable benefit of support for the Homestead Farms Golf Course. o Address the standard by which common open spaces and neighborhood entrances must be cared for so as to maintain the high standards associated with the Homestead neighborhood. o Outline the roles of an incorporated HOA and the Declarant in regards to the appearance of residential neighborhoods, the operation of the golf course, the maintenance of stormwater facilities, and the use and maintenance of common open spaces and pathways. o Establish new property assessments based on establishment of roles and responsibilities identified above. City administration, City legal counsel, and staff are available as resources for the execution of these next steps or to facilitate an agreement between the Declarant and the Owners Association. I strongly encourage each homeowner to consider that the most productive and cost-effective path forward may be one of facilitated mediation rather than continued legal wrangling. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me at (360) 354-1170 or korthuiss@lyndenwa.org. Sincerely, Scott Korthuis , Mayor Bob Carmichael, City Attorney John Williams, City Administrator Heidi Gudde, Planning Director Steve Banham, Public Works

Last week, homeowners received two emails from the HOAG and plaintiffs; one was a flyer, the other an email with attachments. Let's start with the email addressed to "Fellow Homestead Home & Condo Owners": The first paragraph begins with the history of Homestead’s lawsuit: “The HOAG was initially formed to try and find a solution, that failed because MJ Management and 18 Paradise didn’t want to negotiate. So, a litigation was started…” Since many people have moved to Homestead since 2020, we wanted to provide details about these negotiations from the HOAG's own updates: 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 the 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.” In one month, the HOAG was already: - Meeting with attorney David Andersson - Setting up an attorney fund - Discussing legal options In hindsight, involving David Andersson this early appeared to create a pressure to choose litigation for the HOAG who, we believe, had good intentions in representing us homeowners. We also believe, based on what HOAG members have told us, they initially wanted to avoid litigation but with an attorney influencing their decisions, the scale was tipped. Without trying arbitration or mediation, and despite a second attorney recommending Summary Judgement for a quicker solution, their decision gained momentum. 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.” The HOAG's email then ends with additional information: “While this was going on, a different group of homeowners that didn’t want the litigation formed a group that tried to produce a plan while working thru it with Mick. Well Mick declined their plan too.” This “different group” is the Advisory Board which the HOAG website, throughout 2021 and 2022, labeled a “myth” and claimed the members were “chosen by MJ Management,” which we now know was careless misinformation from lawyers and plaintiffs. The Advisory Board had spent a year working to re-structure Homestead on behalf of the homeowners’ need for accountability, setting up a reserve fund, prioritizing repairs, amending CCRs and amendments. Mick’s decision to decline their plan showed they were an independent Board working for the homeowners. If the HOAG and plaintiffs did not bother to verify the truth about the Advisory Board for nearly 2 years, and continue d to post this falsehood on their website,  can we trust them to verify any of their other claims?

Former HOA President on Managing an HOA for Large Community

Homestead Homeowners Meeting - April 19, 2022 Mt. Baker Rotary Building, Front St., Lynden 5:30 - 7:00 pm & 7:30 - 9:00 pm *These minutes are a combination of both meetings. ADDENDUM: Due to the one-hour time limit for each meeting, Duane had to keep his answers short but some of you asked for more details about specific questions. Therefore, I met with Duane several days later and have added the additional information to the corresponding paragraph as an “Addendum”. Welcome & Rules of Order: Bob Weeks welcomed 250 homeowners to the meeting, outlined the rules of order: Respectful meeting, mask mandate is lifted No recording or videos of the meeting Turn off all cell phones Questions will be submitted in writing only This meeting is for prospective property owner History of the PRD: multi-family, single family, condo/apartment built around a golf course, it is an integral part of Homestead. City approved Homestead’s development for the water mitigation ponds throughout its course (19 ponds, 2 pump houses, an outflow on east side and one on west side). Origins: DUANE: Grew up in Iowa, met his future wife Arlene in college, she was from Sumas. They moved to Lynden and his equipment business soon grew to a Kubota dealership on Guide Meridian with 55 employees. Duane introduced his son Willy to talk about how he would manage Homestead. WILLY: Discovered golf as a youth, when his friend’s mom dropped them off at a driving range. After slicing and hitting for hours, he was hooked. Throughout high school and college (Western), Willy found time to golf on Homestead’s course. When he graduated with a degree in Business Management, he accepted a job at Homestead as their golf professional and was soon teaching large groups of students. Despite the Canadian border being closed in 2020, business began to grow. After a successful year, Willy resigned to consider future plans. Soon after, when the golf course came on the market, he asked his dad if he would be interested in purchasing it - Duane said yes. Management Goals: Willy’s vision for managing Homestead is to keep it an 18-hole course, have an efficient accounting system where homeowners can access their personal account any time, and the conversation around the course will not be about a lawsuit. He will continue teaching students the game he discovered when he was young, to keep future generations coming to Homestead, as well as being an accessible manager with a competent staff. Purchase: In August, 2021, Duane made an offer to purchase Homestead from Mr. Chen, the current owner. It would be turned down twice before Mr. Chen accepted. Addendum: There is a claim that Homestead is only worth $600,000 and that Duane paid too much. A home in Homestead recently sold for $900,000 so it does not make sense that 153 acres of beautiful real estate with mountain views is worth less than a house. For comparison, the city of Lynden paid $1.2 million for 8 acres in Dec. 2018 and prices are even higher now. Once his offer was accepted, Duane was surprised “nothing much happened.” When the plaintiff’s attorneys deposed Mr. Chen’s realtor, demanding to know the name of the prospective buyer, the realtor identified Duane. He expected a phone call from the attorneys but again, “nothing happened which told me volumes. They were not interested in settling this lawsuit.” A number of times, Duane referred to the plaintiff’s lawyers as “ your lawyers” because “90% of you are class members in the class action lawsuit and some of you don’t even know it.” He explained that if we had not opted-out using a form sent by the lawyers, we were automatically included. Addendum: From listening to people for several months about this topic, Duane heard people who are still upset about how it was handled. In early 2021, Andersson sent an update that explained if you did not opt-out, you would be automatically included in the lawsuit. In Oct. 2021, the lawyers sent an opt-in letter, and then the week before Christmas, Dec. 2021, they sent opt-out letters. Most people did not connect Andersson's explanation with a letter from “Davis & Leary.” And many did not trust a letter from a stranger, asking them to sign a form and return it. When Duane brought the topic up, it was to inform, not judge, what the lawyer’s/HOAG website claims: “over 90% of parcel owners support the class- action lawsuit against the golf course.” Many residents still don’t believe they’re included without choosing to be, as demonstrated at the lawyer’s meeting on April 21. Duane is a senior along with many of us, and understands the importance of being informed. To gain knowledge about Homestead’s lawsuit, Duane had been reading court documents and HOAG updates, as well as following court proceedings. He informed us the lawyers had just lost their lawsuit against the city and were now left with one lawsuit: the class action. In Feb. 2022, to move the sale along, Duane reached out to attorneys David Andersson and Matt Davis. They agreed to a meeting and brought plaintiff Tom Staehr with them. Duane felt the meeting went “very well” and was optimistic a solution was possible. In March, 2022, Duane sent a fee proposal to the attorneys and waited to hear back. Two weeks passed without a response. Duane called Tom Staehr, asked if he had seen the proposal, he had not. Tom called his lawyers who called Duane’s lawyer, Lesa Starkenburg. The lawyers had rejected the fee proposal. At this point, Duane looked around the audience and asked any plaintiffs present if they had received a copy of the proposal - several shook their heads. Duane suggested their lawyers should have run the proposal past them before rejecting it. Regarding his proposal, Duane explained his reasoning for multi-tiered fees: It is more fair and reasonable for condos/apartments, already paying a high HOA fee, to have a lower maintenance fee. Only homeowners paying a higher fee are single homes on golf course. Off-course & on-course duplex/multiplex, VI, Meadow Greens, & off-course single homes will pay less. Addendum: The fee scale was based on Duane believing it was unfair for people in condos/apartments to already be paying high HOA fees and then have an additional high fee so he chose a “multi-tiered” fee proposal. It allows for those who are struggling to make ends meet and who are not on the golf course vs residents on the golf course who are ok with higher fees to get a more fair and reasonable solution. The previous one-fee-for-all was not seen as fair. In projecting which repairs would be priority, Duane said streets, street-lights and sidewalks will be first for safety purposes. Street-lights will be brought up to code in anticipation the city will resume maintenance. He also wants to prioritize the airport due to the outlet drain not being maintained, which has created a hazard. Duane asked several of his friends who love to golf, where they enjoy playing. When they did not list Homestead, they said it was due to losing balls in the many ponds throughout the course. Addendum: The many water hazards for golfers vs pond mitigation for Lynden has been a challenge for 30 years. At least with a local owner, we could have someone who wants to fix the problem instead of deferring it. Q&A: Q: Would you consider conveying the COS to homeowners? A: No, and here’s why. If homeowners don’t maintain the COS, we’ll get complaints and now we have to manage you for not managing COS. Q: Would homeowners know where or how their money is being spent? A: It will be obvious, you will see repairs being done as we restore Homestead to what it once was. Q: What is our guarantee you won't misuse funds? A: There is a trust factor needed from both sides and you have my word. Plus my door is always open, and you don’t need an appointment. Q: If you have no intention of turning over open spaces or creating an HOA, what are the checks and balances? A: If after two years, you can’t see where your money is being spent, then we have failed you. We can’t predict what's going to happen but we will be transparent and we are here, local, and open to hearing and discussing your ideas. Addendum: Duane explained he believes actions prove intentions, which is why he said if we can’t tell where the money is being spent, they have failed us. He wanted people to know he stands behind his word with visible evidence for follow-through, repairs, and restoration. Q: When you said "they" never showed us proposed fee schedule, who are "they"? A: The plaintiff’s attorneys. Q: Is there any kind of first right of refusal that you are up against in this sale? A: No. Q: Would the fees be going to maintain open space only or will some go towards the golf course? A: The golf course cannot survive without the fees, so a portion will go towards it. But there will be separate accounts for each portion of the fees, no co-mingling. Q: Can you limit reserve fund to maintaining stormwater ponds only? A: There probably won't be anything in the reserve fund for 5 years; that's how long it will take to repair and restore all of the deferred maintenance projects. Q: Do you plan to form an HOA? A: We’re open to that discussion. You had a very good, hard-working advisory board but their preamble didn't see the light of day. HOA’s have the potential to work but many do not. Look at Heartland’s HOA (in Lynden). It’s against their HOA rules to park on the street but cars are parked all along the street and no one can do anything about it. Addendum: Duane repeated he is open to discussing having an HOA but in his experience, HOA’s tend to fizzle out or frustrate the members due to not having or using enforcement power. But again, he believes in listening to the other side. Q: Are there any clauses to allow building or different uses for the land? A: Can't be done, the City won't allow it. It's a big stormwater issue and the golf course provides for that. It can only be a golf course. Q: Will you be going to the lawyer’s meeting on Thursday? A: It would be inappropriate because I’m not involved in the lawsuit. Addendum: After the homeowners meeting, Duane and Willy were personally invited by the plaintiffs to attend the lawyers’ meeting. Willy attended in person, Duane was out of town but able to observe meeting via zoom. Q: Would you work with investors? A: No, I’ve worked with them in the past, prefer being on my own. Addendum: Duane explained he has had investors throughout his career, and found he could make decisions more quickly without waiting for a committee to decide. The meeting was adjourned in order to prepare for the second meeting at 7:30. Responses from the crowd were very positive as people commented on Duane’s candor and willingness to work with Homestead homeowners. The most frequent comments were relief we could finally move forward and have a local owner for our community. The audience of 250 applauded several times throughout the presentation. At the end, one attendee’s summary: “This is an incredible opportunity for us to have a beneficial relationship with Homestead’s owner, something we have not had for several years.” Duane’s contact information: Cell: 360-961-5147 Email: duane@scheq.com Office Address: 8223 Guide Meridian

In the last few days, the lawyers, the HOAG (Mr. Davis does not even know who they are) and the plaintiffs have launched a flurry of accusations at homeowners who have chosen not to join their cause. They must not remember their own emails to all of us, such as these two from 2020: HOAG Update 11: “…HOAG doesn’t own the corner for negotiation, that anybody can negotiate to find a resolution.” HOAG Update 12: “In order to have a successful negotiation it’s imperative to have all the facts.” We’ve been doing exactly that but based on  recent email, continue to be criticized for our efforts. A few days ago, a letter from attorney Matt Davis was sent to our homeowner website. This is just the first half: Dear ourhomesteadlynden.com , “My name is Matthew Davis, and I am one of the attorneys who has essentially volunteered hundreds of hours of my time to the cause of protecting Homestead homeowners. I would address this to you by name, but your website gives no names. So I checked your website registration, and you have paid someone to keep your name secret there too. Who are you and why are you hiding your identity. What kind of coward does that? Your website says “Our Homestead website will listen to all sides, answer questions with links and information from credible, known sources, and encourage each of you to look beyond the status quo for real resolution.” Hallelujah! I have been trying to communicate with people on the “other” side for years, but every time I do, they scurry away like cockroaches. I want to hear what you have to say, and I would like to be heard in return. But this really isn’t about you and I, is it? It is about all the people who will come here and lap up your statements because you have a pretty website. And you have a talent for making people fearful. But if you won’t show your face, then sooner or later people will be onto you.” Our response : 1. Mr Davis is calling all of us, including his own class members, cowards and cockroaches. What kind of person, professional or otherwise, would do that??? 2. If Mr. Davis had done his due diligence, he would see there are no names on his website, for HOAG members, the landscapers who submitted a bid, the managing lawyer for the trust fund, or the budget committee. 3. Like Mr. Davis, we have also volunteered hundreds of hours of our time researching, answering questions, sharing links and documents with our neighbors because we want each person to make an informed decision. But unlike Mr. Davis, we have not asked for - nor received - one dime because we actually live here, this is our home, and for us, it’s a matter of the heart, not the trust fund.

Here are two quotes from the Homestead-HOA website's “The Goal” section, with our replies to ensure people hear both sides: “In recent weeks, a few Homestead homeowners have expressed objections to the lawsuit…” Our reply : We are not “a few homeowners” but the majority of Homestead homeowners who are ready to move forward, without the lawsuit. A survey, as well attendance numbers at homeowner meeting, show the majority are eager to be a united community once again. “If you oppose the lawsuit, then you are in favor of 18 Paradise retaining complete control over your HOA and your restrictive covenants.” Our reply : We oppose the lawsuit because it appears its sole purpose is to enrich the lawyers. They began asking for money in Jan/Feb 2020, and by April, Attorney Andersson said he had “advised our clients” to refrain from paying fees to the golf course and send the $93 fee to them instead. HOA experts have told us, without exception, that during a lawsuit, homeowners should continue paying fees until a lawsuit is settled. We oppose the lawsuit because the lawyers keep changing their minds. For two years, the list of crimes committed by 18 Paradise and MJ Management has changed, previous charges have been dropped, MJ was dismissed, City of Lynden was added and then dismissed, and now the original Complaint from 2020 is in its fourth revision. Does this mean the original offenses in 2020 were never true? We oppose the lawsuit because many of the people sending their dues to the lawyers are senior citizens trusting the lawyers’ promise of “treble (triple) damages” of $25,000 each. We oppose the lawsuit because a fraudulent filing of our HOA is in the hands of a lawyer and his plaintiff. Mr. Andersson has acknowledged - and per our CCRs - 18 Paradise alone can convey the HOA to homeowners. Knowing this, Mr. Andersson filed an HOA for Homestead, listing himself as Governor/Director, without permission, authority, or discussion with homeowners. And this was months before filing the lawsuit - for what possible reason? A homeowner added the following: Since the only defendant in the class action lawsuit is 18 Paradise, why aren't attorneys Anderson and Davis focusing their time and energy exclusively on them? Instead, they are wasting time over an HOA we have not even discussed or voted on, stopping the sale of Homestead, misleading people about maintenance fees and disrupting our Homestead neighborhood, all of which has absolutely nothing to do with their lawsuit and they don't even live here! I know it isn't out of the goodness of their hearts to right a wrong when for the last three years they have been paid an estimated $400,000 (100 people donated in 2020, 120 in 2021, and 140 in 2022 at average of $93 each). If I'm wrong, show me the bank statement. Now they are verbally attacking a well-respected, honest business man who is a life-long resident of Lynden. Why? Because he has an open door policy and a very fair plan for Homestead community that would benefit us all. He is our best option especially when compared with another foreign investor or out-of-state buyer. We are watching Homestead deteriorate, both in its beauty and friendly attitudes, and it needs to end now.

Montgomery Purdue PLLC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5500 Seattle WA 98104-7096 Benjamin I. VandenBerghe (206) 682-7090 EXT. 108  biv@montgomerypurdue.com July 6, 2022 VIA EMAIL ONLY Matthew F. Davis Sui Generis Law, PLLC matt@matthewfdavis.com David Andersson Andersson Cross Border Law Corp. kda@acblc.ca Re: Proposed Fee Framework from Prospective Buyer Not Protected by ER 408 Gentlemen: On behalf of 18 Paradise, L.L.P. (“18 Paradise”), I write regarding the Hillius v. 18 Paradise, et al. , lawsuit (“Lawsuit”). As you know, the prospective buyer of the Homestead development, DNA Real Estate Holdings, LLC, is owned and operated by Duane Scholten, a longtime Lynden local with deep ties to the Lynden community. Without 18 Paradise’s involvement, Mr. Scholten has had considerable dialogue with the Homestead homeowners to explore options for the future of Homestead should his purchase close. According to his counsel Lesa Starkenburg-Kroontje, there is overwhelming support for a transition of ownership to Mr. Scholten, a new maintenance fee structure as proposed by Mr. Scholten, and an end to the litigation that has now overshadowed Homestead for well over two years. To reflect Mr. Scholten’s willingness to abide by the framework described below, he has also signed this letter. The purpose of this letter is to propose this framework to your clients, the named class representatives. The framework is as follows: 1. Record an Amendment Eight to the Homestead covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”) that supersedes Amendment Seven. Amendment Eight would provide as follows a. New maintenance fee structure: i. Detached-home owners whose property abuts the Homestead golf course would pay a $90.00 monthly maintenance fees; ii. Detached-homeowners whose property does not abut the Homestead golf course would pay a $70.00 monthly maintenance fee; iii. Duplex/multiplex/condominium homeowners whose buildings abut the golf course would pay a $60.00 monthly maintenance fee; iv. Duplex/multiplex/condominium homeowners whose buildings do not abut the golf course would pay a $36.00 monthly maintenance fee; and v. Homeowners in the Meadow Greens and Vacation International areas would pay a $20.00 maintenance fee. b. Revise Section 3.5(f) of the CCRs to (1) abolish retroactive fee raises, and (2) provide that fees may only be raised five percent (5%) per year or equal to the annual cost-of-living increase, whichever is greater. c. There will be a three-year freeze on maintenance fee increases. d. Revise CCR Section 3.3 to provide that maintenance fee money may be used for: i. Common open space; ii. Entry signs, landscaping, and mailbox surrounds; iii. Streetlight electrical power bills and maintenance of lights; iv. Stormwater system (ponds, culverts); v. Sidewalks and walking paths in Homestead not managed by City; vi. Tree removal and servicing within Homestead PRD; and vii. Golf Course management and upkeep. 2. An unincorporated advisory board will be formed to assist and meet with golf course owner/manager. a. The buyer envisions the board meet annually to discuss any upcoming fee increases and special assessments, if needed, along with other homeowner concerns. 3. Special assessments may not be implemented unless approved by the majority vote of the advisory board. 4. The declarant will retain ownership of the common open space. 5. In the event that the new buyer elects to sell the golf course, the advisory group would be notified and would be provided with a period of time to form a buying group from the Homestead community. We envision this could be reflected in a document similar to a first right of refusal. 6. The Court must approve a class action settlement binding on all class members consistent with the above framework and thereby dismiss the current litigation with prejudice. 18 Paradise is willing to accept the above proposal provided that it puts an end to the current litigation. Within 14 days of the date of this letter, please advise whether your clients are also willing to abide by this framework moving forward. If so, the framework will be reduced to a signed agreement. This If you accept this proposal in principle within 14 days, 18 Paradise is confident the litigation can come to an end and the community can move forward in a mutually beneficial manner. Sincerely, Benjamin I. VandenBerghe Signed By: Duane Scholten DNA Real Estate Holdings, LLC