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.”