"I'm collecting names of violators" for a List, he said.We've all heard about the troublesome illegal traffic stops executed in Sudden Valley by Mitch Waterman and his gang. They have been discussed for months. Individuals have complained of the apparent intimidation. Wiser, more experienced homeowners cringe because they remember the legal quagmire these illegal stops represent, and the legal problems they have caused in the past.Back in 2007 SVCA's own law firm concluded that the SVCA has no legal authority to stop and detain the public, especially non-homeowners. In other words, doing so risks law suits. Today, in 2015, the Whatcom County Sheriff has confirmed to multiple people that SVCA security has no legal authority to make traffic stops and issue citations. Yet, under this board, they are apparently being used to intimidate residents prior to an election.Every time Sudden Valley willfully infringes on the rights of individuals, they risk liability for law suits and damages that will be paid by Sudden Valley homeowners. When they do so knowing it is improper, they assume liability for willful infringement, which can incur punitive damages.This time, however, the rookie security guard actually stated to the driver (me) that he was stopping people not to issue citations, but to "make a list of violators". An intimidation list. The kind of list thing bullies use to exert influence over people, to get their way.Henceforth I will play the role of "the driver" because honestly, this wasn't about me personally, or anything I had done. This could just as easily be you, or any other Sudden Valley tenant.There was little discussion between us about the alleged speeding, because in this instance, the security guard quickly assured me he was not issuing a citation. He just wanted my ID to put me onto "a list of violators" he was creating for "the administrator of Sudden Valley".A Sudden Valley Leverage List?Of course there was some discussion of that concept. A list for who? Who asked you to do that? What for? His answer was "the administrator", and he gestured in the direction of Mitch Waterman, who had been standing in the parking lot earlier.After the driver informed the guard he lived up the street and had lived there for over 5 years, the driver asked the guard if he had to comply with the request for ID, and was told that no, he did not. The driver asked if he was free to go, and was told that yes, he could leave. The driver then waited until the security guard was finished, and the security guard even stated that he was finished. In fact, he quite clearly stated "we're done" and walked away.The civil encounter ended without incident. There are minor details that should not be consequential except to verify the facts of the event, and many of those have been raised at an appeal hearing and confirmed. As confirmed by Security Guard Alexander Moffitt at the appeal hearing, there were no raised voices, there was no cussing, there was no name calling. There wasn't even finger pointing or hand waving. The driver never exited the car. In fact, at an appeal hearing Mr. Moffitt acknowledged that the driver did not exhibit any behavior at all that could be described as un-civil, according to an eye witness account published to the Internet.The driver then continued home (a few blocks). The security guard returned to his post. Security Guard Alexander Moffitt did not write a citation. He did not write a report. When asked to testify at an appeal hearing, he acknowledged he could only complain about the driver's "tone" of voice, and that the driver had complained of poor service from previous Sudden Valley security on other issues in the past.I can tell you that what the driver actually did was ask Mr. Moffitt who he was (since he and the Pacific Security car were new to the neighborhood), why he was pulling someone over with flashing lights in his own no-other-way-out-but-back-through-the-gate neighborhood, why he wore a gun on his belt, and why he would be creating a list.After Mr. Moffit identified himself and told the driver his company was new to Sudden Valley, the driver did indeed very explicitly state why he would not cooperate with the "violators list". In fact, the driver asked "would you like to know why?" to which Security Guard Moffit said yes, and was then told of two previous incidences where Sudden Valley Security had, like Keystone Cops, mishandled simple noisy neighbor complaints, making them worse. Moffitt was also told that the County Sheriff at the time confirmed that one incident was clearly mishandled.The Driver, not the Security Guard, then called the SheriffWhile Mr. Moffitt didn't document any concerns after the traffic stop was over, the driver did. When he got home, the driver called the Sheriff to raise concern about the gun, and lack of training, and the "intimidation list" concept. He made contemporaneous notes of the details of the traffic stop, and emailed them to himself to apply a date stamp.The driver, a Sudden Valley Resident just like you, was concerned for the safety of Sudden Valley under Pacific Security. Could these guards be trusted?Little did the driver expect what happened next, when Mitch Waterman found out someone didn't comply with his wishes. Or maybe it was the mention about the Sheriff's "no confidence" vote for SVCA managed security. Whatever the reasons, what happened next should frighten all of you Sudden Valley residents, tenants, homeowners, and landlords.
False Charges, Cowardly sent in SecretDid you know that if you call the Whatcom County Sheriff to speak to a deputy, they have to call you back? And did you know that before they call you back, they may decide to first call Sudden Valley Security to find out "what's going on" before they actually call you back?That's what happened in this case. The Sheriff deputy, in an apparent attempt to be helpful, called over to the SVCA offices to find out what may have been going on that a resident would want to speak to a deputy about the conduct of a security guard.The deputy didn't reveal this at first... but confirmed it in a follow-up call after the driver (and Sudden Valley tenant) was charged by Mr. Waterman with $1200 worth of fines, accompanied by false charges of "threatening" and "abusive" behavior. Keep in mind the driver didn't actually get any "Notice of Violation" -- it only was sent to the landlord via the Property Management company. The landlord was threatened with a lien if she did not accept a label of "predisposed to abusive behavior" or some such for her tenant, with all of the consequential responsibility that carries.The landlord had no relationship with the tenant, as is typical for Sudden Valley where property managers manager such matters. Yet the landlord was expected to accept these claims, and charges, despite no evidence, no proof, and no testimony from the actual security guard who would have witnessed the encounter. The landlord was expected to simply believe the false claims, accept what was later proven to be faked eye witness testimony as factual, and to take actions against the tenant to protect the property from lien.Mr. Waterman, with the assistance of Normal Smith, issued 3 citations for a total fine of $1200. He pretended to deliver a Notice of Violations to the tenant while only delivering it to the landlord, and he started to intimidate the property manager, directing her to tell the tenant to "go talk to Mitch".I kid you not... the Property Manager (SunMark Realty) actually asked the driver to go and visit with Mitch Waterman in person, at his office, and "talk to him"... the same guy that just made up these false charges and provided fake eye witness testimony to support them. Later, she would insist the driver "pay the fines" as well.The charges:"Aggressive Behavior Toward Scv-2 Security During Traffic Stop for Speeding" 17.14c/R&R1.1.5 $1000"All 17.14b Failure/Refusal to furnish information or lying to avoid penalty or responsibility" $100"All 17.14 Obstructing a Sudden Valley Officer or Representative" $100
Norman R. Smith was not there.The language on the citation form is there for a reason: to protect the citizens of Sudden Valley from tyrants, and to protect the Sudden Valley Community Association from wasting money paying out on lawsuits that come in when tyrants or incompetents make mistakes and hurt people.Your administrator (such as a Manager or a head of security) is the person you all rely upon to protect you, by following the procedures properly. Following procedures protects them from liability, and you from bad actors. What happened here?
Welcome to Your AppealThis website is not intended to "tell the whole story" of this horrible affair. There is certainly enough material to fill pages and pages of entertaining and ghastly factual reporting of how these actors behaved during the past several months.This website is to provide you, the Sudden Valley community of renters, landlords, homeowners, and interested parties, with a taste of just how horrid this experience has been for this falsely-accused resident.How would you like to find out from your landlord (whom you have never even met) that you've been charged with 3 serious violations that slander your character, backed by signed false eye witness testimony from your own community's head of safety and security?How would you like to have your property manager tell you that she has over 100 properties in Sudden Valley, and can't risk the repercussions that have been outlined to her if you don't pay the bully his demands? Basically admit to a character assassination that is not true and that is counter to a lifetime of integrity?How would you like to see copies of letters others have received that were allegedly sent to you, being used against you in administrative proceedings, some of which were improperly back-dated, and none of which were ever delivered to you?How would you like to enter the room in the middle of a conversation where Mitch Waterman is reminding Nick Flacco that he will be buying him the next round of drinks when they next gather at the bar? Or to listen to Mitch Waterman make a snarky remark that you have no integrity, as you leave the hearing?The above photo is from the appeal hearing, where Carol Baumann seemed outraged that I would try and record the hearing (she forbid it).These are the faces that were supposed to represent a fair and impartial "hearing" after over 2 months of false charges, administrative bullying, lies, and intimidation. The proceedings were even worse... as were outlined to the board members in the attached request for a re-appeal (see image below).How would you like to have Mitch Waterman stack an Appeal Hearing with corroborators aligned against you, in order to try and humiliate you while claiming to have provided "due process" for an appeal? And then run the meeting himself?How would you like it if when a seemingly pleasant Carol Houlton engaged you into polite conversation, a nasty and dismissive Carol Baumann (pictured) extended her hand towards your face with a loud "shush!!! You'll have your turn!", while still not making eye contact? It was as if we were all meek first graders in the classroom of an overtired, wishes-she-were-retired teacher. And Nick Flacco... the picture tells the story. This guy seemed angry before I even entered the room, and continued that demeanor through "questioning".How would you like the SVCA lawyer Seth Woolson to openly state to you that he did NOT represent Mitch Waterman, but only the SVCA board, yet then fully participate in the meeting including backing up Mitch Waterman on issues raised regarding Waterman's own actions?The series of events, the harassment by Mr. Waterman, and the support of the board members for his actions is highly unusual and unexplainable. Even the simplest of factual details has become comical, such as Mr. Waterman's initial written testimony that "Security Staff clocked a Toyota with a radar gun..." which when discussed was supposedly absolutely backed by "proof" he would provide later, only to later become "the radar gun was turned off before a picture could be taken" and then finally "there is no radar evidence" followed by the SVCA putting forth testimony that the speeding charge was still valid because Security Guard Moffat has become "pretty good" at estimating a vehicle's speed by eye.I kid you not... arrogance has no bounds, and this SVCA board operated a sham of an appeals process... probably twice. Once for the tenant, and by all accounts I've seen, again for the landlord.These are your representatives. These people, behaving in these ways, represent you the Sudden Valley Homeowner. Ultimately you are responsible for their actions under the law. And this can happen to you, too, especially if you are tenant.
Why Should I submit to an "Appeal" for False Charges?This is the reply sent to a notice of an appeal hearing for the false charges. Faced with being bullied into an administrative process that was clearly going to be unfair, this seemed like the proper notice to file with SVCA.Unfortunately the driver decided to attend the appeal hearing after all...unaware of how badly the deck had been stacked against him. It seemed reasonable to provide the board with a chance to hear that Mitch Waterman was up to no good. It turned out to be a mistake to trust the appeal process, which is in fact, trusting Carol Baumann, Nick Flacco, and Carol Holten, and eventually Larry Brown.
Would a Second Appeal have been any Better?They clarified that there could be a second appeal hearing, and it would involve "the full board". They scheduled it without consulting me, assigned the charges differently again, and send me notice to simply appear. I asked for clarifications of the terms... attorney Seth Woolson send a response email containing no facts but instructions to "read the attachement". The email attachment wouldn't open.When notified of that fact, lawyer Seth Woolson simply said it was too late to resend it, and that he was already "at the hearing", and I needed to be there.A conspiracy novelist couldn't make this stuff up.I wonder, would that re-appeal hearing have been any different than the first hearing? When I finally did open that attachment, it said I would be given "5 minutes" to make my case before the full board. What a joke.
UPDATE: This section has been censored! Tsk tsk.... more energy wasted by Sudden Valley residents chasing the wrong goals. Rather than expend more effort to try to hide and cover up the truth, fix the problem! It's YOUR association! Fix it!Here's the censored version:Someone on Facebook self-identified as REDACTED has suggested that this website and other public comments about the reprehensible behavior of Mitch Waterman and his SVCA board are more harmful to Sudden Valley than allowing those behaviors to continue. REDACTED seems to believe this website is part of some conspiracy by angry homeowners : "YOU proudly and arrogantly put up a web site and open twitter accounts and use them to harass the Herald and KGMI to slander our employees...".
No, REDACTED, this web site is mine. A 6 year tenant renting in Sudden Valley, who has been wrongly harassed, slandered, and fined by your HOA manager; actions supported by your elected board. Read it again, to understand better for yourself.
Each public tweet belongs similarly to its author. That's how democracy and civilization works.
Are a web publisher, REDACTED? (The same name is the producer of REDACTED and other sites). If so, I am surprised to see you make such comments.
In this country, real people, with honest claims, are allowed to speak the truth. When bad actors threaten, slander, or otherwise attempt to coerce or extort, perhaps to chill free speech, they can be challenged to explain themselves with true facts, evidence, and testimony. A responsible local government must provide a just venue for that, which Sudden Valley has refused to do.
A responsible public media acts to help uphold principles of justice, not cover up claims of injustices.
If you are the owner of a Bellingham-centric information website that makes money from advertising and especially real estate spending, I assume you feel threatened by these allegations against the SV manager and board. Perhaps you don't feel safe. Me either.
Unfortunately, as long as people try to cover things up, or keep them outside of public view, out of fear or whatever else makes you think things are better when left in secret, these bad actors continue and the harm continues.
The truth is, this particular unlawful pursuit and victimization by Mitch Waterman continued outside of public view for almost 5 months, while I complied with your "private" system of self-management here in Sudden Valley. That system and your board failed to show signs of integrity, as has been well-documented.
Your SVCA employees had numerous opportunities to speak up and show integrity. Instead, they hid out of public view. Your board had numerous opportunities to acknowledge the validity of the claims, and to demand a reasonable explanation. Each one was notified individually via the SVCA lawyer. Instead, YOUR BOARD elected to cover things up and back the false charges.
We are beyond the point of pleasantries now. This is a very serious public issue.
To you I would like to say what is perhaps the most painful truth : I believe all of this is more your fault than Mitch Waterman's. Mitch Waterman is probably nothing more than a mere "operator" : a nasty person given the job of playing dirty, to achieve desired end results.
If legal problems arise from Mitch Waterman's actions, a determined board will simply replace him with another operator, as long as people like you allow them. Oh, and YOU will pay for ALL of the consequences, including the legal fees and any settlements, under your current system.
I note that it is YOU, not tenants, that elect and support the board members. You also, by attempting suppress free speech and hide the details from public view (as your Facebook post suggests), enable the bad behavior to continue.
It seems you are much more at risk if you keep all of this out of the public view, than if you help highlight it in public, so it gets addressed.
By failing to insist that claims raised by honest victims of this administration are worthy of investigation (to determine the TRUTH), YOU are lowering the property values in Sudden Valley. Perhaps more importantly, you are risking the safety of your neighbors, and the security of our community as a whole, by permitting dishonest practices to continue in your administrative and security departments.
The public discussions will not go away, because they are TRUE and will withstand public challenges. They will cause public concern and debate, and help expose further truths about corruption and abuse of authority in Sudden Valley. Whether you like it or not.
Please note: This section specifically addressed to REDACTED was added ONLY because a person behind that Facebook handle proposed that my web site was part of some harmful effort by complaining homeowners in the Facebook group. It is essential that this person be better informed, before more harm is done.
To the poster: perhaps you could put some of your web publishing power to work for a good cause, link to this site, and help raise awareness? Or write about it? The sooner it gets responsibly addressed, the better for Sudden Valley homeowners, by your own explanation.
Given your concern for Sudden Valley and your investments, I can't explain why you have not spoken up to request real answers from your board on these allegations that you admit are causing harm?
If you are so concerned, why have you not asked Larry Brown to explain why these charges were not dropped? Are you not concerned that when they were challenged on appeal, and SV employees testified that they were not true, they were still upheld?
Why have you not voiced concern that your own Head of Security signed false eye witness testimony, and admitted so in an appeal hearing, and yet the charges were upheld? When an employee admits to lying, it is to save his own skin. He passes responsibility to his managers and the board. They have not responded except to uphold charges and push for fines.... because you haven't said anything. Does that make you feel safe?
Look in the mirror - you may find part of the real problem. Until then, rest assured the public discussions will continue, until the truth is acknowledged.
And also allow me to assure you as an individual and as a member of my Sudden Valley community, that you have my full personal respect. I encouraged to continue to educate yourself on these civic matters, and to voice your opinion wherever you see fit. I am also happy to accept confidential communications from you via the form on this site (as long as they are clearly marked "confidential), if you seek such a channel to communicate. UPDATE: You lost a lot of my respect when you attempted to have this site censored.Note to Everyone: This is America. Censorship is not legal under our Constitution, so of course I can bring back the materials, and responding to each complaint as per my rights. I choose not to. My point was made. But I do notice that her Facebook posts are still live.... and she continues to spout her opinions, even though she's apparently ashamed to see them made public.Can you see the problem?
Fix the ProblemAs of October 18, 4 citations have been issued against the tenant and the homeowner, with fines.Despite two appeal hearings defended by this SVCA board, led by attorney Seth Woolson who claims to properly represent the wishes of the SVCA (the homeowners of Sudden Valley), the charges have been upheld and there is a motion to take small claims court action against the tenant to pay. This despite the inability of SVCA to produce any evidence, and despite eye witness testimony that Mr. Waterman's charges were false and damaging.There is eye witness report that that Mr. Waterman admitted he was trying to "teach me a lesson". The SVCA board knows all of this... and appears to believe it can ignoring it, and achieve defense via aggressive offense you are paying for when you pay the SVCA law firm.Up Next: Small Claims Court in the State of Washington? Here Come the Subpoenas...Mr. Waterman and the SVCA board have threatened to send the remaining $400 fine to Small Claims Court. This would be the first time these proceedings enter a legal court in the State of Washington, instead of the SVCA Kangaroo-style court we have witnessed thus far.In a true legal court there can be subpoenas for testimony under oath, requests for a jury trial, penalties for perjury. It is all a matter of public record, and there can be criminal sanctions for exposed activities.
Pacific Security and TrainingOne of several testimonies from former Pacific Security employees, who post to the web site GlassDoor.com. Notably the important parts relate to the employee lamenting the lack of training received, despite assurances that training is provided.- Pacific Security and TrainingOne of several testimonies from former Pacific Security employees, who post to the web site GlassDoor.com. Notably the important parts relate to the employee lamenting the lack of training received, despite assurances that training is provided.
