Protecting Bridle Trails
Requirements of Compton Green
McGrath Homes was required by King County to make sure the easement of 1942 continued to be effective and because Compton Green was such a large development, 90 acres, King County required public walkway trails be established so that there would be access to all the Parks, schools and residential lots of the area. Compton Green was platted so that there are public easements that allow everyone from the surrounding area to safely walk through the community to get to the Parks, Schools and residential lots. The easements were dedicated to King County upon the filing of the plat document. The plat of Compton Green came to life on September 25, 1967 at 3:41 pm when it was recorded at the King County recorder's office. By this time the plat had been approved by all the required County officials and signed off as a plat that met all the requirements of the King County Platting Regulations. This document is known as KC Resolution 11048. It was the Law that regulated all subdivisions in King County. The map below shows where all the public easements were platted. The map also includes the Parkside East plat which was platted in May of 1972 through the City of Bellevue. Parkside East also has public easements for equestrian trails platted throughout the community. These easements allow access to Bridle Trails State Park.
Compton Green, 2004
Anti Equestrian Safety – A minority few, about twenty or so, have blocked or purposely obstructed the public right of way which was put in place to allow safe passage to Bridle Trails State Park and to allow safe travel in the area to schools, parks and horse properties.
Anti Pedestrian Safety
The neighborhood is unsafe to walk, especially for children. Porsches, Mercedes, BMW’s rule the right of ways.
The Compton Green Takers of the Common Areas and Public Right of Ways
Brad Renner. Renner proclaims to be the President of the Compton Green Homeowners' Association, Inc. He has been asked to provide the board meeting minutes when he was nominated to the position. He has not provided that information. Renner has been asked to quit claim his right to another member's trail easement. Renner has refused to do so. Renner has private meetings with members but not all members. Renner is required by State law to hold open board meetings. He has attended board meetings which exclude entitled members to attend. He promotes the continued fraud of the Compton Green Homeowners' Association. Renner has shown no interest in helping to make the community safer for pedestrians and equestrians. He removes members from meetings. Full story at Compton Green Homeowners' Newsletter on this website, but in short on June 8, 2004 Renner had another member removed prior to the annual meeting starting. He enlisted the City of Bellevue Police Department to achieve this goal. The member was doing nothing, was not creating a stir or making any sound at all. Just sitting there. The member was not violating any published rule. Renner did not want to give the member an opportunity to participate. What Renner is afraid of is a mystery. He won’t speak with the member.
Martin Bacon. Protects closed meetings. Refused to quit claim rights to trail easements. Instead of promoting open discussion and meetings, he prefers back room dealing which is anti equestrian and anti pedestrian in nature. Promotes the continued fraud of Compton Green Homeowners' Association. Approved of having member removed from annual meeting although member was not breaking any published rule.
Robert & Joanne Adamowski, Lot # 1. Obstructed easement use with fence which violates community covenants of no structure in screening easement. Mr & Mrs. Adamowski, why are you obstructing the use of the trail easement with your illegally erected fence and why are you ignoring the community covenants screening easement?
Ralph & Cathy Beuter, Lot #2
Unmaintained trail easement
Mark & Brenda Kasper, Lot # 6
Julie Williams, Lot # 7. Ms. Williams, why are you obstructing the use of the trail easement with your illegally erected fence and why are you ignoring the community covenants screening easement?
Doug & Linda Deardorff, Lot #8
Tom & Shelly Raschko, Lot # 9. Promoted closed meetings against members of the Compton Green Homeowners' Association. Has closed easement and promotes demise of trail system. Was an insider to the board with private meetings and violations of State Law.
Doug & Connie Cameron, Lot # 10
Gil & Nava Mor, Lot # 11
Andy & Gladys Anderson, Lot #12. Gladys is an illegitimate board member of Compton Green Homeowners' Association who was not properly nominated by a proper board of the association. The Andersons do not maintain the trail easement on their property, as they are required to do.
James & Ann (Bishop) Lampman, Lot # 13
Gregg Harmon & Michelle Welch, Lot # 14
Richard & Janet Brunhaver, # 112. Took a public trail easement from public. Does not want to contribute to public trail system. Attorney, Ken Hart has disgracefully neglected his duties as an officer of the court and has lied to the Court, cheated, concealed information from the Court just to protect the Brunhavers. Attorney Ken Hart and the Brunhavers could care less about the preservation of Bridle Trails or the safety of pedestrians or equestrians. Hart cares about one thing and one thing only $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. More about Hart below.
Dr. Peter & Pauline Schock – started lawsuit which disrupts neighborhood and then after moves away leaving the mess behind. They illegally built a playground on public property.
Don & Marlene Meiser, # 120, 121. Lawsuit plaintiff. Hid important information from the courts.
Mir & Lynn Hajmiragha- another lawsuit starter and then when it’s over moves out of neighborhood.
Mark & Louisa Davis
David & Laura Buchtahl – have taken over public easement with play area.
Sallie Holmes, # 119. She moves into Bridle Trails, next door to an existing horse property with horses. Then she complains to the City of Bellevue that the horses smell. A suggestion to her would be if you do not like horse smell don’t live in Bridle Trails. She is the perfect example of how the non horse lovers try to change what Bridle Trails is all about.
Charles & Nancy Kimbrough, Lot # 98. Charles Kimbrough is an attorney. Nancy Kimbrough was a previous board member of the Compton Green Homeowners' Association. The Kimbroughs took nearly $200,000 out of the community through legal fees. Charles Kimbrough did not protect the community interests but instead chose to support the demise of the common areas and public trail easements. Why did he do this? He did it because his property had a public trail easement, which was a common area of Compton Green, and the Kimbroughs didn’t want anyone to use it. Kimbrough hid information from the courts and opposing attorneys. He did not produce documents when requested and hid the LAW from the courts. Kimbrough was told by the City of Bellevue, Mr. Richard Andrews, City Attorney in 1996 that the City considered itself as easement owner which rights could not be extinguished. Kimbrough kept this important information from the courts. As an officer of the courts he had a duty to disclose all information he obtained before and during the lawsuit, about the trail easements. Kimbrough met with the Compton Green Board over and over in private meetings and which was in violation of State Law 64.38. Kimbrough has no regard for the Law or the Rules of Professional Conduct which he is obligated to obey. He is an attorney whose only interest is in billing as many hours as he can. He hides, refuses to answer even simple questions, lies, cheats and conceals information from the courts. He is a coward and a disgrace to the legal profession. He charged the Homeowners' Association for him to meet with his wife who was a board member.
Chapter 1, Page 2
Supporters of the Takers of the common areas and public right of ways
Charles Kimbrough, Attorney
Ken Hart, Attorney. This attorney has lied to the court and hid information from the courts and the opposing side. He slithered through the back rooms and convinced others to lie and hide documents. Hart had no case to rely on so he did whatever he could to conceal as much information from the courts as he could. He also cannot and refuses to answer even the most elementary questions regarding his legal position. He has disregarded his legal profession obligations and duties to the courts.
January 12, 2005
VIA FAX TO KENNETH W. HART
AND US MAIL
Larson Hart & Shepherd
Kenneth W. Hart Tel: 206-340-2008
One Union Square Fax: 206-340-1962
600 University Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Julin & McBride, P.S. Tel: 425-885-4066
Brian Dorsey Fax: 425-885-4442
16088 NE 85th Street
Redmond, Washington 98052-3530
This letter replies to Hart’s letter of January 4, 2005.
The judgment of $3,223.48 dated May 20, 2002 was paid on June 1, 2002 by check delivered to Hart’s office along with the Notice of Appeal. At most, if interest was due from May 20 – June 1, the interest totaled $9.54. Hart cashed the check and never mentioned any interest due.
Hart makes a big deal about $9.54. However, when it comes to providing the correct laws to the Judge, providing discoverable documents when required and not lying to the Superior Court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court and the Washington Bar Association then that appears to be no big deal to him. Hart has done all of the above.
It is not unfounded that Hart did not provide all required documents during the litigation before Judge Finkle. When I found that one critical letter (the one in which Hart states the association has an obligation to maintain the trails) which Kimbrough and Hart hid, he then chose to lie about it to the Washington State Bar Association and the Superior Court during the CR60 motion . As can be seen by his reply letter and although Mr. Dorsey has asked for professional courtesy in order to do his due diligence, Hart obviously is taking the position to hide material evidence again. Violation of RPC 3.4(a).
Rule 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
A lawyer shall not:
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act.
Hart knows of other documents which have not been produced. It’s impossible to believe that Hart and Kimbrough only had one letter between them when they lied in bed and worked together for those two plus years. What I received from the City of Bellevue or not received has nothing to do with correspondence between Hart and Kimbrough, Nylander, Rosenstein and any others associated with them. Certainly the City of Bellevue has no knowledge or access to correspondence between Hart and Kimbrough, Hart and the Association and Hart with any of the current or previous attorneys or members associated with the Association.
It is not unfounded that Hart put Ms. Helland on the witness stand to testify first and utmost that the dedicated trail easements were private, while at the time Hart knew but kept it secret that, Ms. Helland and Mr. Andrews of the City of Bellevue had already made a statement that the City of Bellevue was an easement owner and the City was exerting some type of public ownership over the trails. Kimbrough and Hart kept this information from Davidson and Judge Finkle. It’s apparent that he somehow enticed or agreed with Ms. Helland not to bring that public ownership interest to the attention of Davidson and Judge Finkle. This public ownership interest statement is of utmost importance to the legal status of the properly dedicated trail easements.
Hart's reluctance to act professional and deliver all correspondence requested by with Mr. Dorsey just indicates his continued dishonesty and disregard for the Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC Rules clearly state:
Rule 8.4 MISCONDUCT
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
“Fraud” or Fraudulent” denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information.
Rule 3.3 Candor to Tribunal
(a) A Lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;
(2) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
(3) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.
(b) If the lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall promptly disclose this fact to the tribunal.
Rule 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, should promptly inform the appropriate professional authority.
Hart is in violation and/or has violated each and every one of the above cited Rules.
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship with and function in our legal system. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are mandatory in character. The rules state the minimum level of conduct below which no lawyer can fall without being subject to disciplinary action.
It is also apparent to me at this stage that Hart doesn’t even believe in his own arguments that the trails are extinguished. First, Hart should explain, if he can, exactly which easements have been extinguished. Has the Tract F easement been extinguished? How about the Kennedy easement? Has it been extinguished? Has the City of Bellevue, King County and the State of Washington easement rights been extinguished? How about the associations' rights? Did Brunhaver, Meiser, Davis, Schock and Hajmiragha lose any rights? The Schocks, Meisers, Hajmiragha and Hall have moved out of Compton Green. Would they be trespassing if they came to Compton Green and walked the trails? How about Hart himself? Can he and his family members come to Compton Green and walk the trails? How about Brian Dorsey, who doesn’t own property in Compton Green or the four square miles, can he come with his family and walk the trails? Would he be trespassing? My opinion is no trespassing against, Hart, Dorsey, Schock, Meiser, Hajmiragha, Hall, Nylander, Rosenstein, Judge Finkle, Judge Barnett and anyone else who wants to walk the trails can do so whenever they want. Why?? Because they are public. Hart cannot dispute these very evident facts. Hart cannot deny any of this. He certainly cannot explain it. Why? Because he is wrong in what he did by hiding and minimizing the true facts surrounding the public dedication of the trails through the King County Regulations of 11048 which Hart also disregarded and hid from the Courts. Either Hart made some serious errors, mistakenly because he didn’t know what he was doing regarding the legal status of the dedicated trail easements, or he actually knew the truth and then decided to obstruct justice by deceiving the courts and conspiring with the others to do the same.
Mr. Dorsey and I look forward to your reply.
Copy to: savebridletrails.com website
Robert Nylander, attorney, withholds documents from Compton Green HOA. Knows the HOA owns property which makes them grantee of 1942 easement and dedication but withholds that information from courts. Nylander would rather protect Kimbrough and Hart than protect his clients' property rights interest. Nylander is in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and disregards State Law.
Joshus Rosenstein, attorney, withholds documents from members of Compton Green HOA.
Chapter 2, Page 1
DATE: August 5, 2004
TO: Dan Dewald, Geoff Bradley -- Parks and Community Services Department; Jim Gough, Robin Zambrowsky -- Planning and Community Development Department; Randy Holmes, Judy Johnson -- Utilities Department; Kevin McDonald -- Transportation Department; Jim Kowalczyk -- Police Department
FROM: Mary Kate Berens, Legal Planner, PCD
SUBJECT: Removal of Trail Blockages within Equestrian Easements
Over the years, the City has received a variety of complaints relating to blockages impeding access to equestrian easements in the Bridle Trails neighborhood. These complaints have been fielded by a variety of departments. In order to ensure a consistent response to questions and complaints raised by residents in Bridle Trails about these equestrian easements, City staff has developed the approach
outlined in this memorandum. The approach described here has been approved by the Directors of PCD, Parks and the Utilities Departments. Please share this with any City staff that may be asked to respond to questions or concerns about equestrian trails in the Bridle Trails area.
Types of Trails in Bridle Trails:
The various plats within Bridle Trails establish either public or private equestrian trails throughout the neighborhood. The trails provide a network of connections to and from the adjacent state park. An inventory of the plats and existing trails was conducted in 1988, the results of which were mapped in 1996, after field verification of some of the trails indicated on the plats.
The inventory reveals that there are six kinds of trails in the area:
•Developed  private trails benefiting only specified property owners
•Undeveloped private trails benefiting only specified property owners
•Developed public trails actively maintained by the City of Bellevue
•Developed public trails maintained either by routine use or by underlying property owner
•Undeveloped public trails
•"Social" trails, not dedicated on the face of any plat or otherwise formally created
 "Developed" in this context means that the trail is passable by horses, and there is clear evidence that the trail is used on a consistent basis. Evidence that a trail is developed may vary, and may include the presence or absence of vegetation, anecdotal evidence from the underlying property owners, photographs, appearance of a worn path, etc.