Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19- First Amended Complaint - Thompson v City et al CV-18-75 Table Of Contents Page(s) Complaint CV-18-75-BU-BMM-JCL 1-104 Exhibit 1 TD&H Engineering R2 Zoning Plat 105 Exhibit 2 MLS Add Listing R2 Two Household Medium Density 106 Exhibit 3 Zoning History Report 107-108 Exhibit 4 TK 03459 - 8-15-2016 -Post Hearing Memo 109-130 Exhibit 5 TK 03459 - Dismiss Lack of Speedy Trial Reply to Response 131-139 Exhibit 6 Steve Kirchhoff about Bozeman 140-143 Exhibit 7 CR-14 0070 - Motion to Dismiss Fraud Upon The Court 144-166 Exhibit 8 DV-15-636CX Rummel Affidavit 167-174 Exhibit 9 TK-15-03459 Officer Carpenters Report 175-178 Exhibit 10 TK-15-03459 Captain Veltkamp Citation 179 Exhibit 11 TK-15-03459 City Attorney Call for Service Report 180 Exhibit 12 DV-15- 636CX Answer affidavit 181-265 Exhibit 13 2005 Cattail Creek Subdivision Area Master Plan 266 Exhibit 14 Cattail Creek - Pre annexation plat 267 Exhibit 15 DV-15-636CX Payment offer 268-269 Exhibit 16 Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company, Insurance PI 270 PETER THOMPSON 2988 Blackbird Drive Bozeman, Montana, 59718 406-570-0268 thoLgpson0089@msn.com Pro Se IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA Cause No. CV 18-75-BU-BMM-JCL PETER THOMPSON Plaintiff, -vs- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CITY OF BOZEMAN, a Montana Municipal Corporation BOZEMAN, Montana, 59715, United TITLE 42 SECTION 1983, 1985.1 States 19865 1988 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT And WITH ALTERNATIVE PLEADING AS CIVIL RICO ACT VIOLATIONS GREGG SULLIVAN City of Bozeman Attorney PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY And FOR ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE KYLA MURRAY City of Bozeman Attorney AND TIM COOPER City of Bozeman Attorney And BOB RISK I i City of Bozeman, Chief Building Official And JIM VELTKAMP City of Bozeman, Police Captain And MARK CARPENTER, City of Bozeman, Police Officer And CATTAIL CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a Montana Non Profit Corporation (HOA here after) Serve Registered Agent: JAYMIE LARSEN 702 N. 19th Ave. Ste. 2A, BOZEMAN) Montana, 59715, United States Physical Address: 2845 N. 27TH AVE. #4, Bozeman, Montana, 59718, United States And CATTAIL CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIAT.ION(S) OF PHASE I, II AND III & OF THE 2008 COMBINED COVENANT ASSOCIATION; AND CATTAIL CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED, acting members And JAYMIE L. LARSEN 2845 N. 27TH AVE. #4 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 2 And SUE GREENO 3321 BLACKBIRD DRIVE BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And PETER NOREEN 3313 BLACKBIRD DRIVE 13OZEMAN, MT 59718 And JAY BLASKE 3355 SORA WAY BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And NEIL RAMHORST 3348 WARBLER WAY UNIT A BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And JOSEPH C SANDS 3317 SORA WAY BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And RANDY SULLIVAN 2944 BLACKBIRD DRIVE BOZEMAN, MT 59719 And ff I 3 DANIEL S MADISON 220 SACAJAWEA PEAK DR. BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And R01I PERIZBORN 518 N TRACY AVE BOZEMAN, MT 59715 And SANDRA(AKA SANDI) HAMILTON 4228 MARSALA AVE MERIDIAN, ID 83642 And LOLA JEFFERS 2775 MARLYN CT#4 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And SANDRA RUMMEL 2827 CATTAIL ST#1 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And JEREMY MAY 3095 CATKIN LANE BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And JOHN HANSEN 3143 CATTAIL STREET UNIT C BOZEMAN,- MT 59718 4 And MELINDA MAZE-TALARICO 3147 CATKIN LANE BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And TYLER POWELL 3327 NORTH 27TH #15 BOZEMAN, MT 5971.8 And TRAVIS MUNTER 3395 SORA WAY BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And SANDY FEENEY 2969 WARBLER WAY #4 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And SANDY SAUNDERS 2943 WARBLER WAY#3 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And DARRIN STROSNIDER 3020 A BLACKBIRD BOZEMAN, MT 59718 And CALLIE MILLER 3062 SUNDEW 5 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 AND AMY HANSON 3352 FEN WAY BOZEMAN, MT 59718 AND KATHERINA FRECHE 2938 WARBLER WAY#7 BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59718 AND ANGIF. MATSEN 3314 SORA WAY BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59718 AND JENNINGS LAW OFFICE, P.C., a Montana Domestic Profit Corporation Serve Registered Agent: WAYNE JENNINGS 517 SOUTH 22ND AVENUE, STE 3, BOZEMAN, MONTANA, 59718 And WAYNE JENNINGS 517 SOUTH 22ND AVENUE, STE 3, BOZEMAN, MONTANA, 59718 And WITTICH LAW, P.C., a Montana Domestic Profit Corporation Serve Registered Agent: ARTHUR V WITTICH 6 602 FERGUSON AVE STE 5, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59718, United States And ARTHUR V WITTICH 602 FERGUSON AVE STE 5, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59718, United States And SUSAN B SWIMLEY INC, a Montana Corporation 1807 W DICKERSON STE B, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59715, United States And SUSAN B SWIMLEY 1807 W DICKERSON STE B, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59715, United States And AMERICAN LAND TITLE COMPANY, a Montana Corporation 1800 KOCH, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59715, United States DOE(S) employee's of American Land Title Company AND Bradley Stratton 7 1800 KOCH, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59715, United States And AT YOUR SERVICE CLEANING & HOA MANAGEMENT INC., a Montana Domestic Profit Corporatton Serve Registered Agent: JAYMIE LARSEN 2845 N. 27TH AVE 4, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59718, United States And JAYMIE LARSEN 2845 N. 27TH AVE 4, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59718, United States And SANDAN LLC Bozeman, Montana Principals: DANIEL S MADISON 220 SACAJAWEA PEAK DR. BOZEMAN, MT 59718 SANDRA(AKA SANDI) HAMILTON 4228 MARSALA AVE MERIDIAN, ID 83642 And INTRINSIK ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Montana Domestic Profit Corporation Serve Registered agent: TAD TSUKAMOTO 8 11 1 N TRACY, BOZEMAN, Montana, 59715, United States And ROB PERTZBORN 111 N TRACY, BOZEMAN, Montana, 597159 United States And AL1.1SON GILLEY 111 N TRACY AVE BOZI M AN, MT 59715 Other address for Allison Gilley 914 W Olive St Bozeman, MT 59715 And RICHARD EMBRY 6150 E WILSHIRE DR SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85257 And COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE 601 RIVERSIDE AVENUE JACKSONVILLE, FL 32204 Serve Registered Agent: C T Corporation System 3011 American Way Missoula, Montana 59808 And US BANK, N.A. Wa ne Hirsch, Regional President 9 303 North Broadway Street Billings, Montana 59107 John Thorn, Montana Sales Manager 104 East Main Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Scott Blando Bozeman 19th Ave Branch 1460 N 19th Ave Bozeman, MT 59718 And ALLEN ARMSTRONG Gallatin County GIS office Gallatin County Courthouse 311 West Main Room 303 Bozeman, MT 59715 DEFENDANTS. COMES Now Plaintiff, Peter Thompson, pro se, this document is an affidavit statement, see formal affidavit statement at signing line of complaint, and for his Complaint against the Defendants states the following: INTRODUCTION This is a civil rights and tort action complaint involving acts of conspiracy which seeks injunctive relief, declaratory judgement and money damages, brought by the Plaintiff Peter Thompson who is a victim of acts of institutional corruption, organized acts of retaliation, various forms and acts of, fraud, malice, coercion, 10 rosecution, tortious interference, breach of abuse of process, deceit, malicious p contract, breach of duty, intentional destruction of evidence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of duty to be reasonable in the breach of contract and conspiracy to commit all said acts. Plaintiff Peter Thompson is a victim of said acts at the hands of the acting members of Cattail Creek Community Associations of Phase I, II and III, the City of Bozeman, the Montana public benefit non-profit corporation of Cattail Creek Community Association, Sandan LLC, At Your Service Cleaning & HOA Management Inc, Intrinsik Architecture, US Bank, American Land Title Company of Bozeman, Commonwealth Land Title, Jennings Law Office, Wittich Law, Richard Embry and other individuals or entities whom have joined and or abetted and or acted as individuals involved in the illegal acts associated with the common interests of these individuals, entities and enterprises. Injunctive relief, declaratory judgement, nominal, compensatory and punitive damages (where allowed by law) are sought against all defendants on all counts. PLAINTIFF DEM ANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. JURISDICTION 11 This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause under 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1391 in that the Defendants and Plaintiff resided in Montana during time material to this complaint and the cause of action arises in the District of Montana. Alternative pleadings include civil RICO Act violations. PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff, Peter Thompson, ("Thompson") is an adult domiciled with his family in Bozeman, Montana. 2. The Defendant Sandra Hamilton is not currently domiciled in Gallatin County, Montana, but for times material to this complaint Sandra Hamilton was domiciled in Gallatin County Montana. Mrs. Hamilton is believed to currently live in Idaho. 3. The Defendant Richard T. Embry is not currently domiciled in Gallatin County Montana, for times material to this complaint, it is believed that Mr. Embry maintained a residence in Gallatin County, but that he lived at 6150 E WILSHIRE DR, SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85257 during the time material to this complaint. 4. 5. All other above captioned individuals and entity Defendants are of Gallatin County Montana or currently have active business locations in Gallatin County 12 Montana. Complaint Overview 6. In 2008 Peter Thompson purchased a buildable lot in Cattail Creek Phase II Subdivision to build a family home in an R2 area. See exhibits I and 2. 7. In 2010 Thompson was advised by the City of Bozeman that the City regarded his lot as R1 and that Thompson could not buildout his planned basement apartment without special permitting. 8. In 2011 the area property management company noticed Thompson that he was violating covenants; Thompson then met with property management company staff and noticed they were endeavoring to enforce covenants that were different than the covenants Thompson purchased under. 9. In the ¶8 meeting, Thompson requested a written explanation for various subjects discussed with the management company, including how the covenants were changed during his ownership without his knowledge or consent. 10. After the meeting described above, acting members of the HOA retained counsel and threatened litigation that could result in the Thompson Family being precluded from living in their home. The HOA said their lawyer would answer Thompson's specific questions but their attorney, Wayne Jennings, did not provide material answers to Thompson's specific questions. At this same time acting members of the HOA continued making voluminous complaints to the City of 13 Bozeman regarding the Thompson residence. 11. During a late February 2018 trial, Jaymie Larsen testified that after the time of the 2011 meeting described above (18), she was president of the HOA board and her 2012 board chose not to answer the 2011 request for an explanation of how the covenants were changed because she and the 2012 acting HOA members thought the information would be used to disband them. 12. In 2011, after the ¶8+¶9 meeting, Thompson hired attorney Art Wittich to initiate a title insurance claim regarding the R2 vs R1 issue, to advise if the covenants could have been lawfully changed without Thompson's knowledge or consent and to comment on whose fault this mess was. Plaintiff understood fiom Wittich that he would have some preliminary answers in a few weeks. Months later, Wittich produced a zoning history report from the City of Bozeman, see exhibit 3. This report stated records relevant to Plaintiffs property were in the possession of Attorney Mike Lilly and the report gave Mr. Lilly's address as a place where the records could be viewed. On March 6, 2012 Wittich issued his first letter of opinion that was expected many months earlier. 13. After receiving Mr. Wittich's March 6, 2012 letter, Plaintiff determined to move the issue forward on his own by asking acting HOA members for records to support his title insurance claim. The HOA cited the MCA stating that Thompson was only allowed limited access to past records, the records sought were now just 14 beyond the time allowed by the MCA for inspection. In 2012 Mike Lilly (Attorney for both the Cattail Creek Developer and the City of Bozeman) and the City planning department were not able to locate documents that Thompson requested to support his title insurance claim. 14. In 2012 the City of Bozeman breached construction permission agreements with Thompson, unlawfully revoked his Certificate of Occupancy in 2013, Then in 2014) City attorney Kyla Murray used falsely sworn statements of affidavit to support criminal charges against Thompson. The City's 2014 criminal complaint was dismissed without prejudice early in 2015. 15. Following dismissal of the City's first criminal complaint, early in 2015 Peter Thompson wrote the HOA a notice-of-complaint style letter that detailed issues resulting from interactions between the City and the HOA and the HOA's continued avoidance of answering Thompson's questions. 16. Midway through 2015, the HOA and the City simultaneously brought litigation against Peter Thompson. The City providing notice of their second attempt at criminal charges within 24 hours of the acting HOA members serving Thompson with notice of a civil complaint seeking an injunction to preclude Thompson and his family from living in their home. 17. In the criminal complaint against Thompson, the City relied on perjured testimony to support their desired results. Once Thompson developed the criminal 15 record to sufficiently show the perjured testimony, see exhibit 4, the City stopped moving the action forward. Thompson did not waive his right to a speedy trial within 6 months, so this 2015 complaint, here in 2019 is ripe for dismissal for lack of a speedy trial, see exhibit 5. 18. The HOA's 2015 civil complaint against Thompson relied on articles of incorporation for standing. These articles of incorporation are documents created without the knowledge or consent of most all area property owners. The founding charter members of Cattail Creek Community Association, a Montana nonprofit corporation, concealed the lack of consent of the area owners from the Montana Secretary of State by their agent, Susan Swimley, filing charter documents which certified the incorporation was in compliance with the Montana Non Profit Act. The implied purpose of the preceding civil and criminal complaints represent acts of retaliation designed to separate the Thompson family unit from their home as a means of stopping Peter Thompson from maintaining an actionable position against the alleged skullduggery of local special interests and their close working partners employed by the City of Bozeman. All the above described actions brought against Thompson, have been the sort of actions that can only prevail against people who cannot afford legal representation at venues where the presiding judge is not offended by those who seek to use the weight of the legal system vs the truth to achieve their desired results. "Poor people regard the police as agents of oppression, not protection. Over and over again, poor people said that justice and police protection are only for rich 16 businesses, rich people and those with connections." World Bank's Voices of the Poor: From Many Lands, Page 471. "it is monstrous that courts should aid or abet the law-breaking police officer. It is abiding truth that "[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 659 (1961)." So stated Justice Brennan, in Harris u New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S. Ct. 643, 28 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1971). transactions. Section 1983 authorizes relief when a state or local official violates federally protected rights. Section 1985 prohibits various civil rights conspiracies, while § 1986.makes it unlawful to neglect or refuse to prevent such conspiracies. 19. Throughout the course of defending criminal and civil litigation from 2014 to present, Thompson has suffered numerous civil rights violations as well as various acts of fraudulent concealment which evidence the pervasive influences of real- estate developers, their fiends and enabling associates. 20. Bozeman has a long history of special real-estate interests which have resulted in institutional corruption of local government and these special interests have conspired against the Thompson family unit causing years of finical and emotional damages and deprivation of civil rights by associations, corporations and individuals, all acting under color of law. See exhibit 6, wherein former City of Bozeman Mayor Steve Kirchhoff speaks about the character of Bozeman. Long Set of Facts, Allegations and Law 17 21. The State of Montana, acting as Plaintiff, filed criminal charges against Peter Thompson in the matter of CR-14-00070. 22. On May 27, 2014, while acting under color of law in the name of the State of Montana, Bozeman City Attorney Kyla Murray swore an affidavit in support of criminal charges alleged against Peter Thompson in the matter of CR-14-00070. 23. The May 27, 2014 affidavit needed to provide the municipal court with an explanation of why Peter Thompson did not have a Certificate of Occupancy to support the 2014 charges against Thompson. 24. The Affidavit of Attorney Kyla Murray stated that on June 30, 2011 Peter Thompson had failed to comply with terms of a construction permission contract between Thompson and the City of Bozeman as follows: "The Defendant had failed to comply with life safety issues identified in the Agreement including a fire safety barrier between the downstairs and upstairs of the structure. Consequently, no Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the basement or the upstairs structure." 25. On June 30, 2011, then City code enforcement officer Paula Frojae made a routine electronic journal entry as follows: "June 30, 2011 4:25:45 PM pfroaje. Tim and I met Peter at his house today. Peter met all the requirements that were in his contract to complete. I will go back to the house in one month." 26. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Bozeman Attorney I8 Kyla Murray conspired with Bob Risk and Paula Frojae to commit fraud upon the court in the matter of CR-14-00070 and that the US Postal service was used in furtherance of these acts. This as part of their ongoing civil rights conspiracy against the Thompson Family Unit, doing so under the direction and supervision of City Attorneys Gregg Sullivan and Tim Cooper. See exhibit 7, Thompson's motion to dismiss CR-14-00070 for Fraud Upon The Court. 27. In 2015. The Citv of Bozeman, acting by and through Police Captain Jim Veltkamp {badge #155), issued a notice to appear and complaint. Notice to appear and complaint were sent to Peter Thompson via US postal Service. The Municipal Court assigned this complaint case number: TK-2015-03459, cominonly referred to as TK-15-03459. Captain Veltkamp was acting under color of law when he executed the sworn notice \ complaint statement. Captain Veltkamp's sworn statement criminally charged Peter Thompson with violation of BMC 1.01 .210 on the 28th day of May 2015 at 1400 hours. 28. During litigation of TK-15-03459, the City needed to provide the municipal court with an explanation of the City's reasons for acting. Bozeman City Attorney Kyla Murray while acting under color of law presented stare decisis to make a case that City Building officials have a duty to act and that the City may revolve Certificates of Occupancy when there are serious safety concerns about a property. 29. In TK-15-03459 Bozeman City Attorney Kyla Murray while acting under 19 color of law made written argument alleging serious safety concerns by stating that "Upon the last inspection by the City there were apparent life safety issues in the unfinished home (unfinished electrical outlets located next to children's toys etc.)." 30. At hearing on the 15th of August 2016, City Attorney Murray made oral argument that the City had to act on known safety concerns and she solicited sworn testimony from Chief Building official Bob Risk regarding safety concerns for children relative to unfinished electrical outlets and life safety issues he witnessed upon the List inspection by the City. Chief Building official Bob Risk was acting under color of law when he provided his sworn testimony at this August 2016 hearing. 31. Mr. Risk's sworn account of life safety issues was based on his site visit to the Thompson home made on February 23, 2012. During this February 23, 2012 visit, Mr. Risk directed Mrs. Frojae to write a correction notice regarding the uncovered electrical outlets in the vicinity of children's toys. 32. On March 26, 2012, then City code enforcement officer-Paula Frojae made a routine electronic journal entry regarding the correction notice she had issued per Mr. Risk's site visit the previous February 23, 2012, Frojae's subsequent entry as follows: "March 26, 2012 3:53:56 PM pfroaje. Today T met Peter for the monthly inspection. The 20 corrections from last month were all completed, regarding the use of electrical outlets and switches had cover plates installed." 33. Subsequent to what City Attorney Kyla Murray and Chief Building official Bob Risk had described in municipal court as "Upon the last inspection by the City there were apparent life safety issues in the unfinished home (unfinished electrical outlets located next to children's toys etc.)." (Mr. Risks observations being based on his site visit of 2/23/2102) there were re-inspections by the City on 3/26/2012, 4/27/2012, 5/23/2012, 6/21/2012, 8/23/2012 and l l/01/2012. Subsequent to Mr. Risk's visit on 2/23/2012 there were 6 subsequent visits without the City expressing any concern for safety issues. 34. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Bozeman Attorney Kyla Murray and Bozeman Chief Building official Bob Risk conspired to deceive the Municipal Court regarding "life safety issues in the unfinished home" as part of their ongoing civil rights conspiracy against the Thompson Family Unit, doing so under the direction and supervision of City Attorneys Gregg Sullivan and Tim Cooper. This alternatively plead as Fraud Upon the Court and conspiracy to commit because the City failed to fulfill their duty to produce impeaching evidence, acting in fiirtherance of the conspiracy. See J'hompson's August 15, 2016 post hearing memo, exhibit 4. The City of Bozeman used the US Postal 21 service while committing these alleged acts. 35. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Doe(s) conspired with Bozeman Police Captain Jim Veltkamp to cause Veltkamp to make a straw man complaint (instrument of fraud) against Peter Thompson without probable cause; and that Bozeman Police officer Mark Carpenter-joined this conspiracy and that Doe(s) of the Bozeman City attorney's office are a part of this conspiracy. Subsequently all conspirators are acting in furtherance of the City's ongoing civil rights conspiracy against the Thompson Family Unit, doing so under the direction and supervision of City Attorneys Gregg Sullivan and Tim Cooper. All involved acting under the color of law. This count of complaint alternatively plead as abetting civil rights conspiracy. The US postal service was used in furtherance of these acts which are alternatively plead as fraud upon the court because the sworn notice citation was a fictional document when executed and the police then conducted an investigation to support the executed document. These acts alternatively plead as mail fraud. 36. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that officer Mark Carpenter normally prints and signs his own reports as originals and that his first true, unedited report in the matter of TK-15-03459 was disregarded and that Doe(s) provided direction on editing his report and or used his computer to alter Carpenter's original report after it was first completed on June 10, 2015. 22 37. Carpenter's report is attached as Exhibit 9. Carpenter's report states that on May 26, 2015, he was tasked by Captain Jim Veltkamp to see "If Peter Thompson and his family were living at 2988 Blackbird Dr illegally and if he was, I was to issue a citation for occupying a residence without a Certificate of Occupancy." 38. Carpenter reports that on May 27, 2015 he visited the Thompson residence but found no one home to speak with and that he left his card in the door. 39. Carpenter reports that on May 28, 2015 he received an email from Thompson in response to Carpenter's card on the Thompson residence door and that Carpenter was invited to email and or contact Thompson via phone at either of two phone numbers provided. At hearing, under oath on August 15, 2016, Officer Carpenter testified that he filled out the notice citation and Carpenter then had Captain Jim Veltkamp sign the citation. 40. The citation discussed above, is in the form of an affidavit which testifies that Captain Veltkamp witnessed Thompson living in his home without a Certificate of Occupancy on May 28, 2015 at 1400 hours, see exhibit 10. At hearing on August 15, 2106 Officer Carpenter's recorded phone conversation with Thompson was played and the recording indicates that Carpenter understood Thompson was working out of state during the week of May 2015, including the day upon which Captain Veltkamp executed exhibit 10. 41. Carpenter reports that on May 29, 2015 he advised Thompson that Carpenter 23 had a citation for Thompson and that Thompson could receive service of this citation on a weekday at the police department. 42. At hearing on August 25, 2016 Carpenter testified that Carpenter filled out the citation but that Carpenter did not execute the citation. After Carpenter filled out the citation notice of complaint he brought the document to Captain Jim Veltkamp and the Captain then executed the sworn notice of complaint which Officer Carpenter had filled out on May 28, 2015. 43. Officer- Carpenter's report states that on May 29, 2015 after Carpenter had advised Thompson the he had a citation to issue, Carpenter and Thompson then exchanged emails and phone contact through June 3, 2015. By June 3, 2015 Carpenter and Thompson had made "a deal" that Carpenter would postal mail the citation to Thompson and Thompson would sign the citation and email a copy back to Carpenter. This "deal" due to schedule conflicts with Thompson working out of state during the week and Carpenter was not willing to meet Thompson on a weekend when he was in state. 44. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Travis Munter and or Doe(s) conspired with Captain Jim Veltkamp to illegally open up criminal charges against Plaintiff and that these parties did then again conspire to cause Officer Carpenter to breach his deal with Thompson to timely US Postal mail Veltkamp's citation so that the City's Criminal Complaint and the HOA's complaint would simultaneously 24 open up litigation against Plaintiff. This conspiracy needed to conceal the HOA acting mernbers' involvement in violating Plaintiffs civil rights by instigating a criminal complaint without probable cause, so the City Attorney's office joined this conspiracy and claimed to be the moving party behind the complaint after the fact. 45. Carpenter reports that after he made the June 3, 2015 deal with Thompson to sign and return a copy of the citation executed by Captain Jim Veltkamp, that Carpenter then contacted Chief Building official Bob Risk to make sure there was no valid Certificate of Occupancy for 2988 Blackbird drive and that Carpenter then decided to also speak with Thompson's neighbors to ascertain if the Thompson family was living in the house. 46. Carpenter reports contact with neighbors on June 5, 2015, several neighbors stating the Thompson family was living there and then on June 5, 2015 Carpenter received an email from Chief Building official Bob Risk stating that "yes occupancy was still an issue and that it was in the city attorney's hands and that building department was not working on the case at all.". Carpenters report then leaves a space big enough for a signature, but does not sign his report and then the report closes as follows: "My report is complete. Mark Carpenter 6/10/15" 47. The City of Bozeman's discovery CD in TK-15-03459 included a call for 25 service report. See Exhibit 11. 48. The City of Bozeman Police Department is alleged to be a complaint based response agency. 49. The Call For Service report which TK-15-03459 is alleged to be a byproduct of, states that officer Mark Carpenter received a call for service complaint of a nuisance fi-om the City Attorney regarding 2988 Blackbird Drive (this implies City Attorney Gregg Sullivan) on June 10, 2015 at 10:38 AM and that Carpenter was then dispatched on June 10, 2015 to follow up on the complaint of the City Attorney. 50. The City ofBozeman's discovery CD in TK-15-03459 included the Word document fiom which Officer Carpenter's report was printed. This electronic document evidences that a full copy of Carpenter's report was 3 pages and that the 3rd page of the filed version was blank, page 4 of Exhibit 9 is a screen shot of the properties tab of Carpenter's report. The properties tab shows that the report as created on 6/10/2015 at 9:44 AM and that total editing time was 14 minutes. Of these 14 minutes of total editing time, the last modification to the report was made on 6/11/2015 at 7:47 AM, 51. On information and belief Peter Thompson alleges that Captain Jim Veltkamp and fellow Police Officer Mark Carpenter are not sufficiently trained to know how to determine if someone is living in a residence with a valid Certificate of 26 Occupancy because neither police department workers ever asked Peter Thompson to see a copy of his Certificate of Occupancy. Rather the complaint filled out by Carpenter and executed by Veltkamp was first executed and then a weeks long investigation was initiated to support the issued citation with the investigation yielding nothing more than hearsay statements to support the previously executed notice of complaint. The City's failure to train these officers about the due process law that surrounds Certificates of Occupancy constitutes reckless indifference of policy makers to the constitutional rights of all Certificate of Occupancy holders. 52. Competently trained officers enforcing compliance with Certificate of Occupancy requirements would be sufficiently trained to know that once issued, a Certificate of Occupancy is a conclusive document which is binding and conclusive upon all government actors, see MCA § 50-60-107 Certificate of Occupancy. 53. If Veltkamp or Carpenter had asked to see Thompson's Certificate of Occupancy and it was shown to them, Veltkamp and Carpenter would be required by law to respect the binding and conclusive document or produce an order from a court of competent jurisdiction that set aside the issued Certificate of Occupancy in order to have lawful probable cause to issue a citation. 54. In this case, an email from Chief Building Official Bob Risk which states "Occupancy was still an issue and that it was in the city attorney's hands and that 27 building department was not working on the case at all" does not rise to the level of lawfully required probable cause to execute a citation in a matter where the alleged defendant has not even been asked to show a copy of the original issued Certificate of Occupancy. 55. In the time line of these circumstances, probable cause for Captain Jim Veltkamp to execute the complaint did not exist at the time of execution of the complaint on May 28, 2015 and after a weeks long investigation which "ended" on June 10, 2015 the investigation failed to produce any evidence to support probable cause to issue the previously executed complaint of Captain Jim Veltkamp. 56. Captain Veltkamp's complaint is a malicious act which has caused and it continues to cause years of emotional distress, financial damages and civil rights violations against Peter Thompson and his family. 57. Though there has been a series of motion work by Thompson to dismiss TK- 15-03459 for lack of a speedy trial, see exhibit 5, the case remains open and live in the year 2019. So far, the City of Bozeman has been unable to obtain findings of fact or conclusions of law from the Honorable Judge Carl Seel to support the City's complaint. 58. During the HOA civil complaint against Thompson, which was brought at the same time as the criminal complaint above, the newly appointed 18th Judicial District Court Judge Rienne H. McElyea took over adjudication of the proceedings. 28 Judge McElyea came from a private practice law firm. Mike Lilly is the first named partner of this firm. Judge McElyea's former firm's client list includes the City of Bozeman and the developer of the subdivision who formed the HOA, where Thompson's property is located. Thompson's answer to the HOA's civil complaint named Mike Lilly, the developer of the HOA and the City of Bozeman within his counter claim efforts. Judge McElyea concluded that Thompson's efforts to make counter claims were not in. fact counter claims and they were disregarded by the court. Judge McElyea denied Thompson permission to motion for her recusal. Thompson is now the Plaintiff in CV-18-75. 59. Bozeman City Attorneys Gregg Sullivan, Tim Cooper and Chief Building official Bob Risk have had a series of meetings with attorney Wayne Jennings representing the acting members the HOA. 60. In the civil complaint (DV 15-636) against Thompson, Mr. Jennings, on several occasions has convinced Judge McElyea to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law that are immaterial to DV-15-636. Coincidentally, these same facts are the facts which the City Attorney's Office wanted to, but failed to establish in the City's criminal complaint, see ¶57 above. 61, Per all the foregoing paragraphs and exhibits, On information and belief Peter Thompson alleges Wayne Jennings and acting members of the HOA have conspired with the City of Bozeman and its employees to violate Peter Thompson's 29 civil rights. These acts in retaliation against Thompson for the purpose of the associated acting members protecting the longevity of the powers of their collective enterprise over other area property owners. One longstanding objective of this enterprise is the circumnavigation of workforce housing occupant's rights under Bozeman's workforce housing ordinance. Another early objective of these associates was the manipulation of annexation powers that are governed by the City's stated growth policy. The current objective of these associates is evidenced by the City and the HOA's collective and interrelated actions in TK-15-03459 and DV-15-636-CX, In Boyle_v. United States, the Supreme Court held that there must be three structural features to establish this type of enterprise: "a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." 62. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges a long running series of meetings and communications between City of Bozeman employees, agents and the acting members of the HOA and their agents, in the matter of DV-15-636. These meetings for the conspiratorial purpose of obtaining findings of fact and conclusions of law immaterial to the civil complaint DV 15-636 but findings of fact and conclusions that are particularly beneficial to the City's criminal complaint TK-15-03459. Thus the Plaintiff(HOA) in DV-15-636 aids and abets the ongoing Civil Rights conspiracy of the City against Peter Thompson and his 30 family. Alternatively it is alleged that the City acts as abettors \ coconspirators of the HOA enterprise in conspiracy acts against area property owner rights. These conspiracies alternatively plead as RICO Act violations. 63. Bozeman City workers, principally City Attorney Gregg Sullivan and Chief Building official Bob Risk, met and collaborated with acting members of the HOA, the HOA and its agents, by and through Wayne Jennings via phone, emails and in person meetings on the following days: 7/30/2013, 3/13/2017, 5/17/2017) 6/22/2017, 7/26/2017, 8/2/2017, 8/4/2017, 12/22/2017, 1/31/2018, 2/8/2018. 64. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges additional conspiratorial meetings between the acting members of the HOA, the HOA and its agents and the City of Bozeman and its employees for date ranges from 2015 to present, including communications with Captain Jim Veltkamp and City attorney Tim Cooper. 65. Each of the foregoing and following facts, exhibits and allegations of fact are incorporated by reference into each individual count of complaint. 66. Further, each line and each exhibit of the attached 91 page affidavit, exhibit 12, are incorporated herewith into each of the foregoing and following allegations and causes of action 1 counts of complaint, the attached affidavit is from Peter Thompson, who is a party in this action, and as such has personal knowledge of the facts and matters herein and in the incorporated documents, except where stated to be based upon information and belief, and where so stated Plaintiff has named the 34 source of the information, and believe the same to be true. 67. Failure to confirm or deny the validity, specific facts and allegations of and within the attached exhibits will be deemed an admission of the authenticity of the exhibits and that the statements of the exhibits are true and correct. The foregoing has so many counts of complaint and the above captioned defendant's involvement interweaves throughout, that in addition to the specific inline causes of actions listed above, the defendants are all accused of aiding, abetting and conspiring against Plaintiff under the following statutes: transactions. Section 1983 authorizes relief when a state or local official violates federally protected rights. Section 1985 prohibits various civil rights conspiracies, while § 1986.makes it unlawful to neglect or refuse to prevent such conspiracies. The following is not meant to diminish or eliminate any of the above complaints, the following is a good faith effort to provide more definitive statements as specific counts of complaint Count One: Violation of Registered Wetland Area Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements of the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs: 32 68. The City of Bozeman Planning department 2003 annual report claimed to be implementing UDO provisions that protected wetlands in the Cattail Creek Subdivision area. 69. The Thompson family has complained to the City about HOA disturbances within the registered wetland setback boundaries of Cattail Creels Phase I, II and III. The email complaint to the City was submitted to the wetland review board, which turned out to be a vacant board that acted as an extension of the City planning department. The wetland review board complaint was answered by the planning department head who stated that the setback boundaries only applied to building structure placements and that concerns about disturbance in the area should be directed to FWP or to the Army Core of Engineers. 70. deleted. 71. The City planning department statement that setbacks only prohibited building placements in the setback area, is contradicted by the following statement: "The building setback is designed to protect the vegetated buffer from human disturbance that could diminish the effectiveness of the buffer. Examples of human disturbance include dumping refuse or yard waste; cutting, mowing, or burning vegetation; filling areas; trampling vegetation; and recreational vehicle use. Direct human disturbance affects both the habitat provided by the vegetated buffer and the wildlife species that are dependent on the buffer" (Clancy et al. 2012, p. 2). 72. Plaintiff Thompson has made a previous written request to the HOA`s attorney Wayne Jennings that the HOA agree to cease and desist with their mowing and trapping disturbances without public notice 1 warning signs within the documented 33 wetland setback area, until the matter can be properly resolved via mediation or litigation, this request was deemed unacceptable by the HOA board members. 73. The following excerpts are from Appendix C.1. Water Bodies - Montana FWP: The following studies and professional opinions justify the vegetated buffer distances recommended.under this design standard: • The mean width of all wildlife studies reviewed indicates that 88 meters (287 feet) is required to protect wildlife habitat (Knutson and Naef 1997). • "Scientific studies recommend that, in order to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, 300-foot (100-meter)stream vegetated buffers be maintained. Certain wildlife species need a larger vegetated buffer" (Ellis 2008,Part 3,p. 7). • "While narrow buffers offer considerable habitat benefits to many species, protecting diverse terrestrial riparian wildlife coi-nmunities requires some buffers of at least 100 meters(300 feet)„ (Wenger 1999, p. 3). • "The most common recommendation in the literature on wildlife(most of which focuses on birds) is for a 1.00 m (300 ft) riparian buffer" (Wenger 1999, p. 47). • Subdivision development can cause significant, permanent loss and degradation to wetlands, water bodies, and their associated.riparian areas. One of the most effective tools available to local governments interested in minimizing loss and degradation to these areas is to set back structures and protect buffers with native vegetation (Ellis 2008, Parts 1, 2&3). • "hi.order to balance development with effective natural resource protection,a rational strategy for protecting aquatic resources roust be developed. It appears that the use of buffers will continue to be an important element of this strategy. To accomplish this, scientifically based criteria for establishing buffer requirements must be utilized by resource agencies" (Castelle et al. 1994, p. 878). Vapet�ea8al�et �eultdinps�idk� Val 80ft SOHNK c p V®g810101 Svffw.. 6.(+plling."4*0* Figurr C.1-2.111maralion qj fnlal building selbod 34 g Provision 2.Use a"building setback"as part of the"total building setback."This provision recommends specific distances(50 feet or 30 feet)for building setbacks.The building setback is located between the vegetated buffer and any houses or other buildings. Substantial Evidence for Provision 2 » "The building setback is designed to protect the vegetated buffer from human disturbance that could diminish the effectiveness of the buffer. Examples of human disturbance include dumping refuse or yard waste; cutting, mowing, or burning vegetation; filling areas; trampling vegetation; and .recreational vehicle use. Direct human disturbance affects both the habitat provided by the vegetated buffer and the wildlife species that are dependent on the buffer"(Clancy et al.2012,p.2). The registered wetlands of BOA area are as follows: Tl.catur 12airt;: ctt`siceI # + 5}.. rtlppet 'byclt soils iithrt .the CAtta 'reek prop r y� :An n4sl o.:W. 6 ,21 f lai d:in the southeri y hirtJl' � f fife r ject`:aire.. e ri tl i r tlar ds 'VS1e s:hie;.Yn May*of and was ttpprc�vetl try.tie:Army. `dr .+ n t; Augh t tar" 1 8. A supp ententai reportwas prepared utept :,a.przpez ddptich is.new the northerr ball of tlafs of the project art:a. Copies of the r0ports are-mcluc ..M Appehda A. The C attM Creek property i ,compri of ae� Cad.), ail:"which a total of 4,*6,ac. are classified a4sretlrtds, 1pur } of welds were identified ritri,rt the'vvetlat (W rleiine-tatlon::marslllp0 s ala d ( 4— Q.& )-.6cruMbrub wedand (W-1.O 9 ac.);willow shrub Wetland 1rW-3 i?.1 a AM WI artifichA irr*tion ditch, (W-4. S&don Lute ditch, 0.6 ac.). Pe ianerit tpaUs are pro se -Pr a.6..tal bf.0.00:ac. within the project site: two (.j creek. Mlsulgs are proposo .for the marsh pond wetland(W-1 0-08.ac.) andone(1) crossing for tine tifc l ifrri tion ditch.0.4 0s0' :�:: '�Vetla irrspacis are�egi�lated by the Corps of Engineers under:*Swim 4( p�[fie e� Warr Act, Though theimpactS are.extretnely sm all and inay quali -f6r a N onWid Pertniit, a�upn' t14 ppilcation will be submitted to the Array Cotes of EngqineerS'fcir:: inp actaiuthoMation. Prayer for relief One: Wherefore the reasons above, pursuant to Clancy et al. 2012, Plaintiff moves this honorable court to issue temporary and permanent injunctions precluding 35 human disturbances within the documented setback area of the federally registered wetland habitat within Cattail Creek area Subdivisions, Phases I, lI, and III. Count Two: The ADU Cons irac Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs: Plaintiff alleges one objective of the defendants is to avoid compliance with the workforce housing ordinance of Bozeman. In this count, defendants conspire to prevent Plaintiff from being allowed property uses that are lawfully mandated to improve workforce housing availability and diminish economic stratification. The HOA doing so by concealing changes within controlling documents from area property owners and the City doing so by concealing their true zoning intentions from those who approved the annexation and platting of the Plaintiffs property. 74 -78 deleted. 79. Developers generally prefer low density subdivisions lots that sell for higher values and generally people who pay more for low density housing are opposed to living in close proximity to typical workforce housing occupants. Cities generally use ordinances to increase housing densities as a means of making housing more affordable and deterring economic stratification. Montana State law requires Cities to have a stated growth policy which reflects allowed uses and future planning conditions upon which their growth through the annexation process is legislatively controlled. 36 80. The following snippet is from the cover letter of a document package downloaded from the City of Bozeman's website, the document is the version of the effective UDO at the time of Plaintiffs purchase within Cattail Creek Subdivision Phase 11: Summary of Work Force Housing (Chapter 17.02, BMC) related amendments Ghr+y�ter'['it[e Section# Section Title � _Rrgttited Revision General Provisions 18.02.040 Intent and Add affordable housing to the list of purposes Purpose of Ordinance. _ -..... - __ 18,02,100 Private Limit covenants that make compliance with affordable housing _ Restrictions. re uircments unattainable ex.minim►tn►btrilgr lI size Residential 7oninj I i 66,020 Authorized Uses, Add attacated housing as an allowed use in the R-1,RMH and R-S 1)istrictE districts,Added a restriction to prohibit smaller lots in previously platted areas prior to the effective(late of the ordinance,prohibited the development of accessory dwelling units on workforce housing --- -- lots, 81. Page 71 of this UDO update package, excerpt seen below, conflicts with the cover letter because attached housing is not listed as an allowed accessory use, but rather only a conditional use that requires a special permitting process that is time consuming, expensive and subject to adverse neighbor input where neighbors often misunderstand that a compliant ADU is an allowed use of R1 lots that will not be denied no matter the neighbors vehement protests. 18.16.020 AUTHORIZED USES A. Uses in the various residential districts are depicted in the table below. Principal uses are indicated with a"P", conditional uses are indicated with a"C", accessory uses are indicated with an `rA"and uses which are not permitted with the district are indicated by a"-" B. .Additional uses for telecommunication uses are contained in Chapter 18.54,BMC. 'fable 16-1 Table of Residential Uses Autliorized Uses R-S I R-I R,-2 R-3 R-4 R-O RM14 Aceegso y dwelling unlc4d C C P r_, 37 Ordinance # 1709:Effective August 15, 2007, page l G-2 82. Usurping HOA board members discovered that subdivision of low density lots and ADU's was a property right of their neighbors and these usurpers secretly conspired against other property owners and City ordinances to develop a system\enterprise that could be used to defraud others of these rights and this same enterprise system continues to be a means by which acting board members continue concealing illegal alterations of area property owners rights through present day. This group committing thousands of individual acts of fraud in the process. This group posing a threat of continued illegal actions. Plaintiffs complaint is about acts committed by the acting members against Plaintiff between 2007 and 2019. 83. This group of HOA board members was abetted by the use of Susan Swimley's document templates and the board members used the US Postal Service as a means of fi•audulently concealing the truth of their actions from area property owners. 84. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that sometime between late 2007 and May 2008, Susan Swimley and her corporation had conspiratorial meetings with Doe(s), Rob Pertzborn and his corporation,Allison Gilley and Susan Kozub and the result was that a plan was formed whereby the HOA conspiracy of¶82 above was moved forward by this professional group. 38 85. All of the original three covenant contract associations included design review regulations within their respective covenant contracts. 86. In May of 2008, this group of board members and their associates filed amended and restated covenants which combined all three previously separate HOA contracts into one mega HOA contract, this mega HOA contract (Gallatin County Courthouse doc. 2300076) hereafter as "the combined HOA" or "HOA". 87. The combined HOA contract did not include any design regulations. The design regulations became a separate document that is not a document of record filed at the courthouse. 88. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the separation of the design regulations from the covenant contract served many purposes, one of which was concealing the avoidance of ordinance 1709 requirements under BMC 18.02.100 from the City if then when the City reviewed the new combined HOA contract prior to the board's agents filing the new document at the County Courthouse. The action of combining the HOA contract (via the separated design regulations) placed private restrictions on area Rl lots that took away property owner rights granted under aspects of the City's work force housing ordinance. �l$.62,1 00 Private Limit covenants that make compliance with affordable housing _ Restrictions, requirements unattainable ex. minimum building size 89. The new separate 2008 design regulations placed private restrictions on R1 lot owners right to have ADU's if they did not have a contiguous back alley and these 39 design regulations placed private restrictions on property owners rights to have ADU's within the confines of their primary structure. The foregoing private restrictions took away property owner rights as was otherwise allowed under City of Bozeman codes and ordinances. 90. The HOA board members, with the aid of their professional help, 184, fraudulently concealed changes to property owners' rights that were made within the 2008 design regulations. The 2008 regulations altered the design regulations that were within the originally separate covenant contracts. The HOA and their helpers owed a contractual duty, statutory duty, and good faith\ fair dealing duty to advise all property owners of the concealed changes as proposed changes for the requisite owner approval. The HOA group published an announcement that falsely stated the acting group was not making any substantive changes to the design regulations and that changes to the design regulations were not subject to prior property owner approval. Many area property owners voted to approve combining into one association based on misleading information that they received via the US Postal service. On information and belief Plaintiff alleges that other significant changes to property owner rights are similarly concealed within the 2008 design regulations. 91. Prior to purchasing property within Cattail Creek Phase II, Plaintiff established a late 2007 purchase agreement with Richard Embry that was contingent on HOA 40 approval of the structure which Plaintiff intended to build. In January of 2008, Plaintiff submitted a full-sized set of proposed construction plans. Page two of these plans depicted Plaintiffs intention to have a basement apartment. Pre purchase HOA design review comments on page two stated that apartments were not allowed in R1 areas and Plaintiff was advised to do ground water testing to determine feasibility of the full basement depicted in the pre purchase design submittal. 92.. Prior to purchase, Plaintiff met with fellow area property owner Keith Warring of TD&H engineering. Keith provided pre application zoning documents, which described the area as R3 under pre annexation county zoning that complied with the City's 2020 growth plan. Keith also provided ground water studies with a site map of monitoring well locations. Keith was asked what he knew about the covenants saying R2 vs the design review comments saying no apartments in R1. Keith said he just owned a lot in the area and had no information about zoning. 93. Prior to purchase, Plaintiff met with City Planner Dave Skelton and as a result of this meeting Plaintiff understood that positive zoning verification was still done in the zoning map amendment drawer and that even if the property was R1, basement apartments were allowed uses in R1 areas. Prior to closing Plaintiff verified the zoning map drawer documents stated the perspective lot was R2, see exhibit 1. 41 94. Shortly after closing on the lot late in February, Plaintiff made an updated submittal for HOA construction document approval. While dropping this submittal off, Plaintiff advised Rob Pertzborn that Pertzborn's recent email made clear that if the covenants differed from city ordinances the ordinances controlled. Plaintiff advised Pertzborn that whether or not a basement apartment was allowed per City zoning was a matter between the Plaintiff, now as a property owner, and the City. The covenants deferred to the City, regardless, and the covenants at the time of Plaintiffs purchase did not preclude the Plaintiff from having a basement apartment. 95. The next set of design review comments Plaintiff received no longer complained about the depicted basement apartment, now the review comments were that the basement apartment door could not be in the front yard. Plaintiff responded by informing the reviewer about how the UDO defined the front yard from a side yard and proved that the apartment door was in the side yard, not the front yard. After this, the reviewer no longer took any issue with the location of the door. 96. Dave Skelton advised Plaintiff that the applied for building permit would be issued in a much shorter time if the plans did not show the basement as having a kitchen sink and cook stove. Plaintiff intended to complete the upstairs first and move in before final finishes in the basement, so revised plans were submitted that 42 no longer showed a kitchen sink and stove. Plaintiff received his building permit shortly after the revised plan submittal. 97. Richard Embry was copied in the CC of all pre purchase emails with the HOA design reviewers. This series of emails communicated Plaintiffs expectation that lie was allowed to have a basement apartment as depicted within the initial review documents. 98. In the pre purchase and post purchase time, Richard Embry was aware that Plaintiff had a high level of interest in any changes that the HOA may or may not have intended about the purchased property. During the pre-purchase time Richard Embry concealed from Plaintiff the fact that he had received a ballot inviting Embry to vote for or against amended covenants. Embry violated his duty of good faith and fair dealing by concealing from Plaintiff that he had access to and voted for specific covenant amendments that prohibit the exact style of basement apartment which the second response of the HOA design reviewer comments had implied the HOA acting members would allow. 99. As a real-estate agent, Richard Embry is a professional with a sophisticated understanding of covenant contracts. 100. The covenant contract entitled property owners to vote at the time the voting meeting was conducted. Richard Embry cast a ballot for a meeting that he knew would occur at a time when he would not own the property. Plaintiff had been a 43 property owner for about 2 1/2 months, when on May 14, 2008, Richard Ernbry's vote that was allocated to the property now owned by the Plaintiff, became the pivotal vote in a covenant amendment processes that turned on one single vote. Above, is one way that Embry abetted and or joined the conspiracy of the HOA, see ¶82. 101. The preceding May 2008 voting occurred without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff Peter Thompson. Rob Pertzborn was a founding board member of the Cattail Creek Community association, a Montana non-profit corporation that is governed under the Montana Non Profit Act. Mr. Pertzborn via his actions as Plaintiffs principal contact for HOA design review and as a design committee member, both pre and post purchase had an elevated duty because Pertzborn owed a duty of obedience pursuant to statutory requirements of the nonprofit corporation and also as an assigned professional agent who participated in the administration of the covenant contract requirements. Pertzborn and his fellow HOA acting members, ¶82, violated their statutory and contractual duties to advise this Plaintiff of and allow Plaintiff to exercise his statutory and contractual right to have voted in the voting meeting which occurred about 2 1/2 months after Plaintiff became an entitled property owner. 44 102. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that between late 2007 and June of 2008, Rob Pertzborn, Allison Gilley, Susan Kozub, Susan Swimley, Richard Embry, Bradly Stratton and their respective corporate entities met with and conspired with Art Wittich and his corporate entity for the purpose of abetting American Land Title Company and Commonwealth Land Title in selling Plaintiff illusory title insurance and for the purpose of defauding Plaintiff of his right to vote in covenant amendment meetings and for the purpose of defrauding Plaintiff of his existing property rights to have a second dwelling unit on his property, see exhibit 2, which evidences the allowed uses that were communicated in a range of area transactions. The preceding parties are alleged to additionally be acting in furtherance of the HOA conspiracy, 182, it follows that the HOA conspirators of 1182 are alleged as coconspirators here as well. 1.03. Unusually fiequent contact with the Bozeman Building department began as soon as Plaintiff installed his three meter base electrical service. Plaintiff understood from the Code enforcement officer Paula Frojae that she began receiving voluminous calls about Plaintiffs property as soon as the meter base was installed. 104. A HOA board member's spouse, Sally Sullivan complained to the City about rumors that Plaintiff was building a basement apartment on May 1, 2009. 45 105. On June 16, 2009 Kristin Holley reported to the City that Plaintiff keeps saying he is going to have three separate living units on his property. Kristen shared Sally Sullivan's concerns about parking issues if the city allowed Plaintiff to have an apartment. Plaintiff asserts Mrs. Holley preceding statements misrepresented the facts to the City. Plaintiff did prior to purchasing his lot understand from conversation with City Planner (Keri), that the two bay garage and room to park two other vehicles in front these garage doors, made up the requffed maximum 4 parking spaces for a primary dwelling unit and that Plaintiffs single side parking spot was sufficient off street parking to authorize a one bedroom basement apartment, i.e., Plaintiff has a total of 5 approved off street parking spaces. 106. HOA meeting notes indicate an acting board member had a meeting with the City's Building code enforcement officer. This board member reported reaching an understanding that the City would stop Plaintiff from working on his basement apartment and that the City would make Plaintiff remove the apartment if Plaintiff later built one. This board member reported this understanding in a meeting attended and noted by other board members. 107. Subsequent to the meeting described above, Plaintiff was visited by Bozeman Building Department's code enforcement officer at his construction project and told to stop work in the basement. Plaintiff then obtained a separate building 46 permit to complete the basement apartment while the larger scope of work progressed under the originally issued building permit. 108. Plaintiff completed construction of the basement apartment, received a final inspection and a Certificate of Occupancy for the lower areas of the structure and in 2010, moved in. The City code enforcement office continued to receive complaints from the HOA board and or their spouses, about the Plaintiff living in his home. 109. 011 April 18, 2011, the HOA contacted Bozeman City building code enforcement and asked for an update about what the City was doing about. Plaintiff living in his home and how code compliant he was. On April 19, 2011 the HOA had a board meeting. 110. Travis Munter, acting as HOA President, wrote Plaintiff Thompson an April 28, 2011 letter that informed Thompson that the HOA would issue fines for non- compliance with the covenants. The letter announced that the board had decided to allow Thompson until June 30, 2011 to complete the exterior plans, landscaping and driveway; otherwise the board would access fines and the directors may take actions to improve the appearance of the property to comply with the covenants. 111. In response to Mr. Munter's April 2011 letter, Plaintiff Thompson met with Above and Beyond Property Management, on whose letterhead Mr. Munter's demand letter was written. During this meeting it was noticed that the property 47 manager was endeavoring to administer covenants that were different than the ones that Plaintiff purchased his property under. Plaintiff requested a written response from the HOA regarding how they had changed the covenants during Plaintiffs ownership without Plaintiffs knowledge or consent. The HOA remained silent to this request for an explanation and then retained attorney Wayne Jennings to handle issues with Plaintiff. The same requests for information were then made of Mr. Jennings and the HOA now acting with counsel continued to keep Plaintiff from material answers to his questions. 112. On May 20, 2011 the City sent a certified letter stating that they were revoking Plaintiffs Certificate of Occupancy because work authorized under the original (now upper area) building permit had expired for inactivity and the letter further demanded that work on the upper portion of the home be completed in 30 days and that Occupancy of the basement be discontinued and the basement kitchen removed. 113. The preceding specific demands of the City's May 2011 letter are consistent with the understanding reached between the HOA and the City as described in ¶106 above. 114. Plaintiff phoned the code enforcement officer on May 27, 2011 and compelled her to get the inspection card and admit that she had errored in determining the upper area building permit was expired. The officer apologized 48 for her mistake and the officer further advised that even though the building permit had been shown not to be expired, the City was still revoking the issued Certificate of Occupancy and expecting compliance with the other demands of the letter, see ¶112. 115. Ultimately in June of 2011, a new construction permission agreement was made with the City and their Code enforcement officer admitted the previously issued Certificate of Occupancy remained valid. 116. After meeting the stringent demands and nearly impossible timeline to complete details of the construction permission agreement with the City, Plaintiff fulfilled the opening demands of the agreement on June 30, 2011. It was in the following meeting with Officer Frojae that she stated to Plaintiff that the lower area C of O remained valid. 117. Plaintiff has worked in construction for over 30 years and never experienced any issues like were now presenting with the City of Bozeman's building department. 118. Suspecting the HOA's harassment of Plaintiff, was actually about the HOA going silent when asked how they changed the insured encumbrances of title and about the fact that Plaintiff and his family were living in their basement apartment, Plaintiff retained the services of Art'Wittich and his law firm in July of 2011. 49 Plaintiff met with Mr. Wittich's office manager, Amanda Menasco who wrote out a summary narrative of Plaintiffs perceived issues. Shortly after the initial meeting with his office manager, Plaintiff met with Mr. Wittich, discussed Mrs. Menasco's summary report and Mr. Wittich made a list of what he was to do for the Plaintiff. 119. Mr. Wittich was retained to initiate a Title Insurance Claim on behalf of Peter Thompson and to investigate liability of the City, the Developer, the seller and the HOA relative to the property owned by Peter Thompson and errors of the associated zoning documents & title encumbrances. The initial meeting with Mr. Wittich in July of 2011, gave Plaintiff the impression that he would hear back from Mr. Wittich in a few weeks' time. Mr. Wittich or his staff made request of the City to provide a zoning history report for 2988 and 2990 Blackbird drive. The City Planning Department issued a December 29, 2011 zoning history report to Wittich Law. On March 6, 2012 Mr. Wittich's office manager emailed Plaintiff Mr. Wittich's letter of opinion. Plaintiff began gathering information to submit a title insurance claim on the R 1 vs R2 issue. Allen Armstrong was contacted to provide background information on his original determination that the Plaintiffs lot was R2 and thus allowed a second address. In March of 2012, Plaintiff contacted HOA president Jaymie Larsen to request documents to support filing a title insurance claim on the R2 vs RI issue. Mrs. Larsen informed Plaintiff the time period of requested records was now 50 beyond the time that the MCA allowed members to view records. The HOA was willing to provide 3 years of back records vs the 4 years back records that were needed to see what went on about the time the HOA changed the encumbrances of title. 120. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Wittich law firm's client list includes Richard Embry, the real estate agent who owned and sold Plaintiff his property within the HOA; and HOA board member\Design Committee member, Rob Pertzborn; and Pertzborn's company, Intrinsik Architecture, Inc, this company wrote and amended the covenants and the design regulations; and Rob Pertzborn; and Allison Gilley; and that Mr. Wittich has a long history of friendship and business dealings with American Land Title Company, Doe(s) and its owner Bradley Stratton. 121. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Art Wittich and his law firm abetted and or conspired with the individuals of¶120, above (or other Doe(s)) to cause Plaintiff and his mortgage provider, US Bank N.A., to believe-they were purchasing title insurance that was applicable to the intended buildout of the purchased property as evidenced in the documents which US Bank provided to American Land Title Company as the basis for American Land Title Company's (ALTC) ordering of appraisal, long term administration of the construction contract and assembly of the closing package. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges 51 that Mr. Wittich and his firm later violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing of their contract with Plaintiff by taking Plaintiff as a client and then by delaying Mr. Wittich's opinion until such a point in time as the HOA would be able to cite the MCA in their denial of Plaintiffs records requests; this count alternatively plead as abetting the �82 conspirators. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges Mr. Wittich denied Plaintiffs requests that Wittich Law provide a copy of Mr. Wittich's to do list and Mrs. Menasco's intake sununary because Mr. Wittich believed the documents might later be used against him. 122. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that US Bank provided ALTC with the full construction contract which included letter page sized floor plans of all floors, including the basement apartment and a three dimensional illustration of the structure that was contracted to be built. 123. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that US Bank provided ALTC with documents for appraisal of the property which identified the lot on which the property was to be built, provided a site plan of how the intended structure would be sited on the property, provided floor plans that depicted each floor of the buildings intended layout and use, including the basement apartment and this package of documents also included a three dimensional drawing of the structure for construction on the property. 52 124. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the appraisal report which ALTC received copies of, indicated that the appraisal report did not warrantee that the intended basement apartment could be built in the area. Plaintiff and US Banlc were relying on ALTC and their provided title insurance as a means of receiving title insurance that guaranteed the intended use of the property. The intended use was communicated to ALTC in the full construction contract and in the loan appraisal package. 125. ALTC received compensation for the title insurance which they sold to US Bank and Plaintiff for title insured protection in an amount equal to full value of the total proposed property which included all land cost and all construction cost. 126. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that ALTC provided title insurance for property owners other than Plaintiff Thompson within the HOA area; and that Plaintiff Thompson's title insurance package is different than other ALTC transactions. Plaintiff alleges that in response to information received from the group described in¶121, ALTC and Doe(s) treated and conspired to treat Plaintiffs transaction differently than other HOA title insurance transactions, thereby breaching the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contracts. Plaintiff alleges that closings at ALTC normally include covenants of record within closing document packages; and that ALTC or Doe(s) purposefully withheld the covenants of record (which described the property as R2 in the back table) 53 from Plaintiffs closing document package; and that ALTC or Doe(s) purposefully withheld pages from the construction contract which depicted the structure that Plaintiff received funding from US Bank to build on the property with the understanding that the to be built property rights were insured by ALTO; and that Doe(s) conspired with ALTC and Doe(s) to make the combined HOA contract a notarized part of Plaintiffs closing document package, even though the combined HOA contract did not exist at the point in time when Plaintiffs insured transaction occurred. Plaintiff further alleges that J. Robert Planalp, ALTC and Doe(s) aided, abetted or conspired to move the preceding objective forward, when in a May 29, 2012 letter to the office of commission of securities insurance, Mr. Planalp, concluded to the commission that the City of Bozeman never filed any notice of zoning describing any part of Plaintiffs land at the Gallatin County Court house and this is the reason why alleged error in describing zoning is not a covered risk for which Plaintiff and US Bank was insured for. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that ALTC and Mr. Planalp breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent of the title insurance contract by providing the commission with a package of documents from which pages of the construction contract that depicted the structure to be built were removed; and by providing documents that are represented as notarized parts of the closing transaction which did not exist at the time of the closing transaction. The 54 combined HOA contract was sent to the commission in place of where the original covenant contract would normally have been in the company records of a transaction that was conducted in a manner consistent with normal practices. Planaip violated the covenant good faith by avoiding speaking to the fact that Plaintiff is insured for mistakes and or fraud of encumbrances of title recorded at the court house and that the Cattail Creek Phase II covenant contract was a encumbrance of title document of record at the court house prior to Plaintiffs transaction, said document stated Plaintiffs Block 9 Lot 7 zoning as follows: J ill ill l 11111111111 III 11111111Jill ?1�31569 IM1l�Y V�noa-Oi4iRtln Co MT MiBC 740.00 EXHIBIT B Cattail Creek.Subdivision Phase II Property Setbacks Front Side Rear Fronting Yard 'Yard Yard Block. Lot# Street Zone Setback Setback Setback Notes 9 1 Blackbird Drive R-2 _20' S' 20' 1,3 2 Blackbird Drive R-2 w 20' 5' 20' 3 3 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' 3 4 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 5 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 6 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 7 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 8 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 Plaintiffs Block 9 Lot 7 property is within the R2 area depicted in exhibit 1. 127. ALTC and Commonwealth Land Title insurance breaches the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by systematically turning over customer claim issues to 55 teams of lawyers whose action provide no good faith claims processing assistance to the client. On information and belief Plaintiff alleges that these companies keep records of and differentially treat claims made by property owners with counsel as opposed to claims made without counsel. 128. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that ALTC and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company systematically mislead their insured, and this Plaintiff, by the intentional design of their policy cover front page which lists coverages they are using to attract purchasers on the front cover and then the policy uses similar phases on following pages to corrupt the integrity of the illusory coverages communicated to the purchasers on the front page. The foregoing breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing of contracts has been compounded by assembly and maintenance of misleading transaction records, such as Mr. J. Robert Planalp used to convince the Montana insurance commission that Plaintiff had not purchased title insurance that provided any assurance of the allowable uses of Plaintiffs Block 9 Lot 7 property. 129. If we are to believe statements made by Mr. Planalp on behalf of ALTC and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company to the Montana insurance conunission, it is impossible for anyone to have purchased title insurance in the Cattail Creek Subdivision Phase II area, with any binding assurance of what the allowed uses of their property would be, because there are no documents of record 56 that snake any such affirmative statements about what the area zoning is. It follows that Mr. Planalp's May 31, 2012 letter evidences that all title insurance policies sold in this subdivision are illusory. 130. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Wittich Law and Mr. Art Wittich violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing of the contract for legal services between the parties by concealing from Plaintiff, the nature of Wittich Law Firms involvement with the HOA covenants and his other clients involvement with property transaction. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Wittich has kept Plaintiff from accessing a copy of his office managers intake summary report and the to do list which Mr. Wittich wrote himself because these documents provide elemental proof that could be used against him and his firm. Plaintiff further alleges causes of action against these defendants for violation of the covenant of good faith and fair- dealing as well as destruction of evidence. 131. Following Mr. Planalp's May 2012 communications with the Montana Insurance commission, the HOA maintained regular contact with the City's Building department. On April 23, 2012 Jaymie Larsen sent a letter to the City demanding explanationslactions regarding a range of issues. Then after Mrs. Larsen having had open access to the City's files regarding Plaintiffs property, on April 24, 2012, Mrs. Larsen pointed out an ambiguity within the construction agreement that 57 deductive math showed the agreement could require completion of the entire project in December of 2012. However, the signature line and other areas of the contract clearly specified Plaintiff had until December of 2013 to complete work under the terms of the contract. In early spring of 2012, Plaintiffs mother in-law Maija Katlaps requested the Plaintiff adjust construction schedule so that the nearly complete ground floor with the ADA accessible bedroom that was intended for her use could be completed and she could move in before the full second and third floor areas were complete. Maija was living in a 3rd floor apartment at this time and she needed more of a ground floor living situation at this stage of her life. Maija knew things were challenging with the City and the HOA so she met with an architect to help. Plaintiff understood from Maija that she had learned the unfinished areas of homes can be left that way and receive a certificate of occupancy with the unfinished areas approved as storage space vs dwelling spaces until work is ready to resume in those areas under a new building permit. Maija's idea was that Plaintiff could stop work in the upper area and then would no longer need to store surplus household items in the rented storage container that the HOA was complaining about. This way Plaintiff could get the ground floor done, please the HOA by removing the storage container and get the exterior complete. Legally other home owners are allowed to receive certificates of occupancy when the other 58 minimum requirements have been met, leaving their attics, basements, bonus rooms, etc. unfinished. 132. Code enforcement officer Frojae was asked on March 26, 2012. if Plaintiff could have a final electrical inspection for the upper areas to get a C of O for storage uses of the 2nd and 3rd floors. At this time the walls of these areas were painted and the final electrical trim complete, the city did not require doors or window trim for occupancy. Officer Frojae said Chief Building Official Bob Risk would have to answer this question. Mr. Risk was contacted and he advised that he would not be approving any areas for storage use type occupancy. 133. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Risk's denial of Plaintiffs request to use areas of his home like other citizens do their unfinished basements, attics and bonus rooms is an act of retaliation for the conspiratorial purpose of abetting the defendants overarching plan to break Plaintiff from claims relative to zoning issues etc.., see bottom of¶18 on page 16. 134. On March 29, 2012 then HOA President Jaymie Larsen responded to Plaintiffs requesting past HOA meeting minutes about the time the covenants were changed. Plaintiff expected that the requested meeting minutes would give a clear view of the truth regarding how the HOA changed covenants during Plaintiffs ownership without his knowledge or consent. Mrs. Larsen stated the HOA was prepared to provide copies of minutes for the past three years. By now, the records 59 that surrounded the time when the covenants were changed were older than 3 years. 135. After having failed to get access to useful records fi•om the HQA, on March 30, 2012, Plaintiff emailed City Planner Dave Skelton with a request for other records that might also help, 136. With what documents he had access to, Plaintiff submitted his title insurance claim via letter. The claim was about the R 1 - R2 mistal<es of zoning documentation issues. After several weeks of investigation by Commonwealth Land Title Company, Plaintiff received the first denial from Commonwealth Land Title Company via letter dated April 16, 2012. During the course of investigating this title insurance claim, ALTC was notified and City Building Code Enforcement contacted. After the first denial and then subsequent denial for reconsideration Plaintiff appealed to the Montana Insurance commission. May 31, 2012 the Montana Insurance commission stated they may be able to help, if Plaintiff could show that there was information within the transaction documents which said the area was zoned R2. However there was no help to be had from the insurance commission, because there was no documentation with the closing transaction documents regarding what the zoning or allowable use of the purchased property was. 60 137. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the preceding T136's lack of documentation, such as the covenants of record which described Plaintiffs lot as R2, was a bad faith \ fraudulent objective of the conspiratorial group described in ¶121 and 1126. 138. In March of 2012, Plaintiff contacted Gallatin County GIS Manager Allen Armstrong to obtain his corroboration that Allen had verified Plaintiff s property was R2, that Allen had years ago issued Plaintiff the 2990 address and that Allen had also years ago, affirmed to the US Post Office, County GIS issuance of the address so that the Post Office could provide a mail box and service for the 2990 address. 139. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges that in March of 2012, Gallatin County GIS Manager Allen Armstrong contacted Doe(s) with the City of Bozeman. That Allen advised the City that, some years back, Allen had helped Thompson out by issuing the second street address of 2990 Blackbird Drive because it sounded like Thompson was getting the run around from the City regarding addresses in the "doughnut area". 140. On information and belief Plaintiff alleges that some years back, prior to issuing Thompson the 2990 Blackbird Drive address,Allen Armstrong contacted City GIS worker, Bill Stetzner and verified that the zoning of Plaintiffs property 61 was R2 zoning that allowed a 2nd street address. Then Mr. Armstrong issued Plaintiff the 2990 Blackbird Drive address. 141. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that in March of 2012, Doe(s) of the City requested GIS Manager Allen Armstrong not find any "official" records of having verified Plaintiffs zoning as R2 and issuing a second street address. 142. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Jane Doe of the US Postal office was contacted in March of 2012 and she was asked to not find any records of confirming that Armstrong had issued Plaintiff the 2990 Blackbird Drive address and Plaintiff alleges that Mrs. Doe was also asked not to have any record of when the 2990 Blackbird Drive mail box keys were first issued because Mr. Armstrong had been advised that Plaintiff was trying to pin the date down so he could get a bank copy of the check that he had used to pay Mr. Armstrong for issuing the second street address. 143. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that GIS Manager Allen Armstrong met with City of Bozeman's Jeff Krauss or Doe(s) on Wednesday the 21 st of March 2012 and that Armstrong agreed to abet the City by keeping Plaintiff from getting Mr. Armstrong's affirmation that as a person who has experience verifying zoning, Mr. Armstrong had himself previously confirmed that the City of Bozeman's records indicated Plaintiffs lot was R2 at the time that Mr. Armstrong issued the 2990 Blackbird Drive address. 62 144. On information and belief Plaintiff alleges that G1S manager Allen Armstrong's letter bearing the date of April 21, 2012 is in fact a letter that was written on March 21, 2012. 145. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Mike Lilly, Greg Sullivan, Bob Risk, Kyla Murray, Paula Frojae, Chris Saunders, Jeff Krauss, Dave Skelton, Danial Madison, Sandra Hamilton, Rob Pertzborn and Wayne Jennings had various meetings and communications about Plaintiff and or his property, between November 2011 and April 2012. l 46. On information and belief Plaintiff alleges that the parties of the preceding paragraph reached an understanding that it would be hard for Plaintiff to get access to documents and that it would be hard for Plaintiff to otherwise meet their respective demands. Plaintiff alleges an agreement of the Defendant's to punish Plaintiff for his efforts to have an apartment and for Plaintiffs efforts to affirm his R2 zoning. Defendant's collectively committed various acts of attrition against the Plaintiff. 147. Beginning in April of 2012, Plaintiff had a series of meetings with Scott Blando, US Bank N.A.'s 19th Ave branch manager. Mr. Blando had set up accounts for Plaintiff when Mr. Blando worked at the area's Main Street branch. Although Mr. Blando was now the 19th Ave branch manager, Mr. Blando personally attended to Plaintiffs banking at the 19th street branch. Plaintiff 63 requested Mr. Blando find a copy of the check that was used to pay the GIS office. Mr. Blando asked why Plaintiff needed a copy of the check. Plaintiff explained he believed the requested check copy would be an important piece of evidence in the zoning matter with the City because the check copy would show that even though the county GIS worker could not find a record, the check would show that his office did find Plaintiffs zoning to be R2 and issued a second address. After a series of subsequent meetings, like with the US Postal worker, Mr. Blando was unable to locate the check copy that could support Plaintiffs accounting of events with the GIS office. 148. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that US Bank N.A.'s Mr. Scott Blando communicated with one or more of the conspirators of 1143 &1145 and that Mr. Blando chose to abet them by breaching his duty of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff by not putting forth the appropriate level of effort to find a copy of the check to GIS. This count alternatively plead as Mr. Blando breaching his duty of good faith and fair dealing of the service agreement with Plaintiff in an act of retaliation against Plaintiff because of Mr. Blando's unrelated dealing with Plaintiffs brother in law (Davis Katlaps) that turned out unfavorably for Mr. Blando. 149. After HOA board President Jaymie Larsen's March 29, 2012 response to Plaintiffs request for board meeting minutes that were older than 3 years, Plaintiff 64 received in April of 2012, a letter dated March 30, 2012, fiom the HOA's attorney, Mr. Jennings. 150. Mr. Jennings' March 30, 2012 letter spoke in an informed manner regarding Plaintiffs relationship with the City Building Department and the letter communicated that even though the City had issued a Certificate of Occupancy and Plaintiff had been living in his home with his family since 2010, that this did not preclude the HOA from seeking an injunction to prevent Plaintiff from continuing to live in his home. "1'he letter stated that should the HOA obtain an injunction to preclude Plaintiff from living in his home, the HOA would also be entitled to legal fees and court costs for their action. The letter stated this would be rather expensive for Plaintiff Thompson. If Plaintiff wished to avoid the assured significant expense and great hardship of Plaintiff being forced from his home, Mr. Jennings' letter demanded Plaintiff affirmatively agree to the HOA's terms, within 7 days of receipt of the letter. The HOA's terms were that Plaintiff was to immediately remove the storage container as a condition of the HOA allowing Plaintiff to continue residing in his home; and immediate removal of the stock trailer that Plaintiff kept his construction tools was the second condition of the HOA allowing Plaintiffs continued residency; and if Plaintiff proposed a time table for completing all 65 exterior finishes, the driveway, sidewalk and landscaping within a period of time that was agreeable to the HOA, then and upon these terms, the HOA would allow Plaintiff to continue living in his home while all of the demanded tasks were being completed. 151. The potential authority of the HOA board to evict area property owners who do not complete construction in a timetable that is satisfactory to the board is such a potential convenience, that in 2017 the board amended their regulations so that the HOA now has such specific written authority over area property owners. 152. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the above described powers of the board were illegally obtained without statutory or contractual authority for use of mail-in ballots for alterations of encumbrances of title to grant the board such powers; and that area owners who are alleged to have voted in approval granting the HOA such powers, 1151, were fraudulently deceived via the US Postal Service about the truth of what changes the board was actually making. The HOA board owed both statutory and contractual duties to have spoken the plain truth of the specifics of all proposed or intended changes within the US Postal mailed invitations to comment in support or opposition to the board's action. 153. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the board acted in bad faith when it usurped control of what home businesses area property owners are allowed at the same time that the other foregoing changes were made within the design 66 regulations. On information and belief Plaintiff alleges the board here in 2019, is again in the process of changing area property owner's rights in the same unlawful manner as the 2008 and 2017 changes. Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctions to preclude the HOA fiom conducting mail-in ballot amendment of Cattail Creek Subdivision Phases I, II and III, property owners rights. The following is a published US Supreme Court Maxim that Mr. Jennings and the HOA board conspired to overcome with their changes to 2017 regulations. Changes which now provide written authority for the HOA to evict owners who do not complete work within the times demanded by the board: "[T]hc equitable powers confernd'.by the Judiciay Act of 1789 did not.hiclude the power to create ensedia previousti,unkrtoWh to equit�;�t�t°i's�ju4?nc.°e. Even when sitting as z court in equity,we have no authority to ctafi a"nucleAr weapon.OI"the law like the one advocated here."Grupo Mexicano de Desc�rrollo S.A. v;Alliance-Bond Fund,Jnc�_; 52.7.U.S. 308; 352(1.00). On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the HOA board adopting the preceding powers is another act in furtherance of the conspiracy described at the bottom of¶18 on pages 16 & 17 above. 154. In the second criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Thompson, see exhibits 9, 10 and 4, the City's Police Department provided a "Report" and Captain Veltkamp's executed citation as their evidence of probable cause. The report spoke to what Thompson's neighbor Brenda had told them as follows: "She also mentioned that the Thompsons 2 kids catch the School bus out front of the house. 67 Brenda also said that Mrs. Thompson has talked to her about them living in the basement and wanting to rent out the upstairs of the home. She mentioned that she didn't think that was possible because it is not zoned for multi family living." Mr. Thompson provides his assurance herewith that Mrs. Thompson has never wanted to raise their two children in the basement apartment and that Mrs. Thompson would never have told Brenda that she wanted to continue living in the small basement apartment while other people lived in her dream home overhead. Plaintiff Thompson's children do not now and never did "catch the School bus out front of the house". People that live on our street know that school buses do not pick children up on this street. It follows that the recordings of the Police r Department's interview with Plaintiffs neighbors can be used to determine if Brenda misspoke or if the report misrepresents what the Police department was told. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the City's failure to comply with Thompson's motion to compel discovery production, which the court granted in the open criminal complaint, because the CityAttorney's office has a policy of concealing evidence that would impeach City workers. The alleged City policy of concealing evidence that would impeach City workers is herewith alleged as the reason why the City has breached their duty to provide Thompson with a copy of the neighbor interview recordings. 68 155. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges that Doe(s) of the City of Bozeman have conspired to destroy evidence that would show Thompson purchased an R2 lot and that City GIS worker Bill Stetzner had previously concluded Thompson's lot was R2. 156. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges that Jaymie Larsen, Wayne Jennings, both their respective corporations and Doe(s) of the HOA board conspired to destroy evidence that Above and Beyond Management communicated Thompson's request for written explanation of how the encumbrances of title were changed during his ownership without his knowledge or consent in writing to the 2011 HOA board. 157. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges that the 2015 HOA board conspired with Travis Munter, Wayne Jennings, Jennings Law PC, Jaymie Larsen,At Your Service Cleaning & HOA Management Inc, and Doe(s) to file collusive litigation(DV-1 5-604B) for the purpose of establishing local legal precedent to use against Thompson in the 2015 (DV 15-636CX) civil complaint of the HOA against Thompson; and Plaintiff alleges that the US Postal Service was used to move this fiaud upon the court forward. Mr. Munter was HOA president in 2011 and at this time he sought to enforce parking regulations against Plaintiff Thompson. Thompson met with Above and Beyond Property Management and asked for a written response from the HOA 69 regarding ambiguities of storage restrictions that were being construed unfairly against Thompson's parking rights. Above and Beyond wrote Mr. Munter's 2011 board about Thompson's requests for written explanation. In 1156 above, the board is alleged to have destroyed this 2011 Above and Beyond letter to the HOA. After Mr. Munter stopped serving as HOA president he then joined the covenant amendment committee, where Mr. Munter studied how to and did endeavor to change the covenants so that the HOA could administer parking restrictions in the specific manner that Munter had endeavored to enforce against Thompson in 2011 . One issue that Munter worked on during his service on the covenant amendment committee was arranging matters so the HOA could enforce parking restrictions in a manner similar to Elk Grove subdivision's parking restrictions. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Munter and the HOA board crafted a collusive law suit against Mr. Munter for the purpose of creating case law to support the method of strict parking enforcement which Mr. Munter has long advocated for. Montana Law requires liberal interpretations of strictly construed (vehicle storage) covenant restrictions that allow the broadest individual freedoms under the restrictions (storage restrictions); thus it was impossible for the HOA to fairly and lawfully convert vehicle storage restrictions into a strict parking control policy. 70 158. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges that Travis Munter was on duty, thereby acting under color of law, when Bozeman Police Sergeant Travis Munter conspired with Captain Jim Veltkamp to control the timing of the delivery of Veltkamp's citation, see 144 above, to Plaintiff Thompson for the dual purpose of simultaneously bringing malicious civil and criminal charges against Thompson and for the purpose of having sufficient time to move the alleged collusive parking control litigation to final adjudication so that case law (DV-15-604B) would be in place soon enough to be a judicially noticeable case for use against Thompson in DV-15-636CX. Count Three: Judicial dissolution Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs 159. The attached affidavit of Sandra Rummel, see exhibit 8, evidences that the HOA nonprofit corporation was formed without the knowledge or consent of members as is statutorily required under the Montana nonprofit act. 160. During the second day of her cross-examination in the trial of DV-15-636CX, Jaymie Larsen stated that her 2012 board did not provide Plaintiff Thompson with information requested because she and the board believed the information would be used to disband the HOA. The exhibit 8 affidavit of Sandra Rummel provides answers to some of Plaintiff Thompson's questions which successive HOA boards avoided answering under the counsel of the law firm of Wayne Jennings. 71 161. Plaintiff Thompson has spoken with Montana assistant Attorney General Kelley L. Hubbard. Thompson understands Mrs, Hubbard's office feels the articles of incorporation represent a contract dispute between private parties and the controversy of the allegedly fraudulently forged articles of incorporation should be resolved through private civil litigation. Communications with Mrs. Hubbard imply that her office consents that it is appropriate that Plaintiff Thompson seek judicial dissolution of the HOA pursuant to MCA 35-2-728 Grounds for judicial. dissolution. (1) (a)(i)(ii) and (iii). 162. On information and belief Plaintiff Thompson alleges the HOA obtained their articles of incorporation through fraud; and the HOA board continues to exceed and abuse the authority conferred upon it by law, by voting via US Mail for contract amendments without the statutorily requisite charter clause to allow such voting. Said voting fails to comply with statutory requirements of notice for mail in voting, said voting fraudulently conceals the true nature of the board's actions from members; and the board wastes members' money by paying Jaymie Larsen exponentially more money for the same services as other previous property management companies had been paid, 163. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges the HOA and its agents committed and continue to commit a multitude of acts of mail and wire fraud via the illegal formation and continuing actions of the HOA. 72 Count Three: Extinguishment of covenant contracts Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs Al .rat__.ice to tlLe c n I,aQt ,The intentional destruction, cancellation, or rnaterial alteration of a written contract by a party entitled to any benefit under it or with his consent extinguishes all the executory obligations of the contract in his favor against the parties who do not consent to act," M.C.A. Section 28-2-1703 (1). 164. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges that the HOA board intentionally cancelled the design regulations that were a part of the originally ,separate covenant contracts of Cattail Creek Phases 1 through 3; that the continued periodic amendment of the combined design regulations constitutes alterations of the design regulations of the original covenant contract and that in so doing all above captioned defendants have extinguished their executory rights of the three original covenant contracts against all who have not consented to the above captioned defendant's acts. 73 Count Four: Extinguishment of Annexation Agreement Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs 165. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges that the annexation agreement inherent within City of Bozeman Resolutions, 3434 and 3585, and ordinance 1593, are all documents which misrepresented and concealed the essential terms of the moving parties true intended use of the land proposed for annexation from those individuals whose approval was required for the annexation action to be lawfirl. Cancanon v. Smith Barney, Harris, Upham & Co., 805 F. 2d 998 - Court of Appeals, llth Circuit 1986 Where misrepresentation of the character or essential terms of a proposed contract occurs, assent to the contract is impossible. In such a case there is no contract at all - in Delgado v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 2016 and 19 similar citations Hames v. City of Polson, 215 P. 2d 950 - Mont: Supreme Court 1950 Hames involved a lease entered by the City of Polson without legal authority, about which the Court concluded that "Cc]ontracts made in violation of express statutes are contrary to public policy and absolutely and wholly void and of no legal effect." 165. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the true character of the intended use of the annexed land was falsely stated within the documents. The 74 documents stated that the annexation was of a minor subdivision; when in fact the land was a part of a major subdivision action. See exhibit 13 which depicts the moving parties alleged true intentions for use of the land within the annexation agreement. 166. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that annexation of land for the purpose of establishing numerous low density R1 lots in areas zoned for medium mix use densities was prohibited by the City's obligation to comply with rules and ordinances governing annexation, including but not limited to the 2020 growth policy. It follows that annexation of land for numerous low density RI lots represents action beyond the legal authority of the City. Hence the annexation agreement is a void act beyond the legal authority of the City which was contrary to public interests as defined by the adopted growth policy and pre annexation zoning. 167. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that rules, ordinances and policies governing the annexation of the Cattail Creek Phase II land area required R2 allowable use for all of the annexed land. See exhibit 14 for pre annexation zoning that was compliant with the growth policy of the time. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that filed documents of record were approved, based on fraudulent concealment of the material fact that more than 40 R1 low density lots were being approved within plat J-369, document of record: 75 1t11�l�9 OisMM►". t ty Vance-"I#at in .Cb 168. Aspects of the foregoing void annexation agreement argument were presented as a jurisdictional defense to the first criminal proceeding against Plaintiff Thompson in 2014. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges the City's ongoing actions against Thompson are acts of retaliation, one goal of which is silencing of the preceding allegation that the annexation contract is a void document. Count Five: Abuse of Process Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs 169. On information and belief, Plaintiff Thompson alleges the HOA, Jaymie Larsen, At Your Service Cleaning & HOA Management Inc, Jennings Law PC and Mr. Wayne Jennings conspired to abuse the legal process as a means of obtaining ratification of the nonprofit incorporation by obtaining unconditional payments from Thompson to the HOA. 170. At the early outset of litigation in the matter of DV 15-636CX, Thompson offered to pay the $825 dollar money demand of the served and filed complaint. Mr. Jennings refused this offer of payment per the demand of the complaint 76 because the offered terms of payment, see exhibit 15, precluded the HOA from later claiming ratification based on Thompson's payment. Months after refusing the terms of payment initially offered, the HOA then acting by and through Jaymie Larsen and her company, issued a letter that advised Plaintiff the HOA would file a lien in excess of three thousand dollars on Plaintiffs property if payment of the 3K plus demanded dollars was not promptly made. On information and belief, Plaintiff additionally alleges the threatened lien as another conspiratorial act abusing the legal process. Under threat of a 3K plus dollar lien, Plaintiff made payment of the lessor amount demanded by the complaint. Plaintiff wrote, "Payment without prejudice" in the Memo note of the check because it was conspicuous that the HOA had initially refused to accept payment per the simple terms offered via email, see exhibit 15. Shortly after receiving the payment described above, Mr. Jennings made written argument on behalf of the HOA that Thompson had ratified them as an organization by making payment to them. Plaintiff answered in writing and pointed out that payment was made without prejudice. Despite this written exchange prior to the first hearing of the proceedings, Mr. Jennings made the following argument at hearing: "That brings up an interesting question, however, Your Honor. He talks about how the Association has no standing in this matter, how it's a phony Association, how it 77 has no validity. Mr. Thompson made the payment to the Association while this case was going on. He made it in December of last year. He has made his payments for the assessments to this Association for nine years now. We don't have it in evidence, but he made another payment just last month. That is evidence of a waiver on his part. It's evidence of some sort of ratification on his part." 171. This count of complaint is alternatively plead as malicious prosecution. 172. Mr. Jennings and his assistant Amy Hanson have a long history of successful communication with Plaintiff via phone, email and regular US Postal service. Plaintiff had previously advised Mr. Jennings that Thompson was always willing to accept service of papers,just call or email and Thompson will pick them up. 173. Mediation is a recommended contractual precondition of the covenant contract. Mr. Jennings wrote a letter that was never received by Plaintiff Thompson because it was sent via registered mail. Mr. Jennings and his staff had been previously advised that Plaintiff does not generally pick up certified mail when he is working out of town. 174. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Jennings, his law firm, the HOA, Jaymie Larsen and her company conspired to maliciously burden Plaintiff with open litigation rather than mediation per the terms of the covenant contract by making sure Plaintiff missed his invitation to engage in mediation because it was known to them that Plaintiff did not regularly receive registered mail. Mr. Jennings could have done the same as the City has previously done when their registered mail was not picked up by Thompson. The City emailed a copy and 78 Thompson confirmed receipt, Mr. Jennings had been previously advised this was how Plaintiff operated. 175. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Mr. Wayne Jennings, the HOA board, Travis Munter, Jaymie Larsen and At Your Service Cleaning & HOA Management Inc. have conspired together to maliciously abuse the legal process in an act of retaliation as means of breaking Plaintiff Thompson and his family fiom their home because they perceived a risk of Thompson eventually exposing them and their skullduggery if the Thompson Family remained in control of their property. Count Six: HOA Civil Rights Conspiracy_ Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs 176. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the HOA and its board members, Jaymie Larsen, At Your Service Cleaning & HOA Management Inc, Jennings Law PC and Mr. Wayne Jennings conspired to violate Plaintiffs civil rights by selectively enforcing covenants against Plaintiff in an act of retaliation for Plaintiffs questioning the legal authority of the HOA, doing so under the color of law in the civil action of DV 15-636CX. 177. On information and belief Plaintiff alleges the conspirators of¶176, acting by and through Mr. Wayne Jennings conspired to violate Plaintiffs civil rights when 79 Mr. Jennings avoided meeting and conferring on scheduling matters with Plaintiff. Thompson; and that Plaintiffs civil right to have threshold matters adjudicated at the requisite time in the proceedings was violated when Mr. Jennings scheduling order avoided appropriately scheduling adjudication of the HOA's contested standing as a threshold matter; and that Plaintiffs civil rights were violated when Mr. Jennings conspired with the court to keep Plaintiffs Bled counter and third party claims from being recognized by the court as such; and.that Plaintiffs civil rights were violated when Mr. Jennings avoided meeting and conferring to establish undisputed facts prior to trial; and that Plaintiffs civil rights were violated when Mr. Jennings committed fraud upon the court during the time of the cost award hearing; and that Plaintiffs civil rights were violated when Mr. Jennings avoided compliance with the due process requirement that his proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law for the cost hearing be provided well in advance of the cost hearing; and that Plaintiffs civil rights were violated when Mr. Jennings obtained findings of fact and conclusion of law relative to the court's dismissal of the tortious interference counter claim without Plaintiff Thompson having an opportunity to cross examine the people who provided the affidavit testimony upon which the finding of fact and conclusions of law were based. The foregoing alleged conspiratorial acts committed by Mr. Wayne Jennings while acting under color of law. 80 178. The forgoing allegation that Mr. Jennings conspired while acting under color of law to violate Plaintiffs civil right "when Mr. Jennings conspired with the court to keep Plaintiffs filed counter and third party claims from being recognized by the court as such" is further detailed as follows: Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Jennings conspired with the court to take away Plaintiffs civil right to have had a jury trial of his counter claims by working with the court to take away Plaintiffs civil right to have counter claims, as follows: "THE COURT: I'm going to aslz you to, but I wanted to start with that question. So let's start there. Do you have any counterclaims against the Plaintiff, the sole Plaintiff in this case, which is the corporation, as you stand here right now? MR. THOMPSON: Yes. THE COURT: What are they? MR. THOMPSON: Breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent filing of documents, mail fraud, basically they owed a duty to communicate the changes in the covenants and they didn't. THE COURT: Do you find that to be a counterclaim, Mr. Jennings? MR. JENNINGS: I believe at best they rise to the level of affirmative defenses, Your Honor." Pursuant to supremacy clause, California litigation immunity statute did not apply to shield from liability in federal civil rights action attorneys accused of conspiring with judge to deprive party of constitutional rights, inasmuch as existence of immunities in action was matter of federal law. Kimes v. Stone, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1.996, 84 EM 1121. Private parties who corruptly conspire with judge in conjunction with judge's performance of official judicial act are acting under color of state law for purposes of federal civil rights statute, even if judge himself is immune from civil liability. Kimes v. Stone, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1996, 84 F.3d 1121. 81 Count Six: City Malicious Prosecution Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs 179. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the City of Bozeman continues to keep the criminal charges that are summarized by exhibits 10, 9, 4 and 5 alive in furtherance of the City's conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Plaintiff Thompson in an act of retaliation in furtherance of the overarching conspiracy described in �18 on pages 16 & 17 above. Summary of the preceding causes of action Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs 180. City of Bozeman's Bob Risk: Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair dealing in contract and violation of Plaintiffs constitutional liberty interest protected under Section 1983 5.1 .B.1.d. in the revocation of Plaintiffs building permit no. 08- 7345 about May of 2011. Conspiracy to violate civil rights of Thompson family. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. 181. City of Bozeman's Bob Risk: Breach of Contract, violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair dealing in City's failure to fulfill terms of 82 written agreement(dated June 6, 2011 : breeched December of 2012) with the Plaintiff. John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) Conspiracy to violate civil rights of the Thompson family. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. 182. City of Bozeman's Bob Risk: Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair dealing in contract and violation of Plaintiffs constitutional right to Substantive Due Process per Section 1983 5.LB.Le in the revocation of Plaintiff s Certificate of Occupancy no. 10-10 130 on 7-30-2013 without due process. John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) Conspiracy to violate civil rights of the Thompson family. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. 183. City of Bozeman's Kyia Murray: Breach of Fiduciary Duty and conspiracy to commit civil rights violations with Greg Sullivan. In failing to respond appropriately when preceding issues were brought to their attention. 184. American Land Title Company (John and Jane Doe(s)): Mistake of contract, alternatively plead as Constructive Fraud and Fraud and conspiracy to commit. ALTC made notarized attachment to Plaintiffs closing documents of document no. 2300076 bearing the date of Plaintiffs closing. Document no. 2300076 did not exist until a point in time after Plaintiffs closing on property within the HOA. Other ALTC documents presented at closing had 83 deleted \ missing pages that accurately depicted type of structure to be built and were also missing the appraisal report stating that zoning was by restrictive covenant: The result being concealment of purchasers intended use of lot, within documents presented by ALTO, based on flawed encumbrances of title vs the allowable use of Lot. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. This count alleged as actionable under the Montana Consumer protection act. 185. Defendants (Jane Doe(s)John Doe(s)), Sandan LLC- Sandra D Hamilton - Daniel S Madison, Intrinsik Architecture - Rob Pertzborn - Allison Gilley, American Land Title Company - Brad Stratton, Richard Embry and Wittich Law Firm-Art Wittich-Amanda Menasco : Conspiracy to commit and or conceal fraud detailed above. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. This count alleged as actionable under the Montana Consumer protection act. 186. Defendants (Jane Doe(s)John Doe(s), Sandan LLC- Sandra D Hamilton - Daniel S Madison, Intrinsik Architecture - Rob Pertzborn - Allison Gilley- Susan Kozub and Wittich Law Firm - Art Wittich : Conspiracy to commit fraud as detailed above. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. This count alleged as actionable under the Montana Consumer protection act. 84 187. Defendants, City of Bozeman - Greg Sullivan, Kyla Murray, Ryan McCarty and Paula Frojae: Fraud Upon the Court. In City's manufacture of statements of complaint not support by material facts, false reports and the manufacture of evidence in preparation and litigation of CR-14-70. Conspiracy to Commit and use of the US postal service is doing so. Defendants (Jane Doe(s)John Doe(s)) as coconspirators. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. 188. Defendants, City of Bozeman- Greg Sullivan, Kyla Murray, Ryan McCarty: Malicious Prosecution in litigation of CR-14-70. Conspiracy to Commit and use of the US postal set-vice is doing so. Defendants (Jane Doe(s)John Doe(s)) as coconspirators. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. 189. Defendants, City of Bozeman- Greg Sullivan, Kyla Murray, Ryan McCarty: Obstruction of investigation of Plaintiff in CR-14-70 in violation of MCA 46-15- 330 Investigation not to be impeded. Conspiracy to commit per parties above with Mike Lily and Tim Cooper as persons of interest regarding conspiracy of this count. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. 190. Defendants, City of Bozeman - Kyla Murray: Swearing of False statements for warrant in the matter of CR 14-70. This in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights per 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Conspiracy to commit with Greg Sullivan and Paula Frojae 85 as coconspirators. Defendants (Jane Doe(s)John Doe(s)) as coconspirators. This count alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. 191. Malicious prosecution, violation of civil rights and ongoing conspiracy to violate civil rights in the matter of TK -15-03459. 192. Institutional Corruption based on the sun of the above Counts including the City of Bozeman. Alternatively plead as Enterprise Corruption. Alternatively plead as failure to train and municipal liability for adoption of policies that cause violations of civil rights. Alternatively plead as part of a RICO act conspiracy. 193. Defendant Susan Swimley has breached her duty to the original covenant contract associations and abetted the acting board members in fraudulent concealment of forged articles of incorporation and fraudulent concealment of unlawful covenant contract amendments. This count alternatively plead as mail and or wire fraud. 194. In 2006 acting HOA board members breached their duty of obedience to the covenant contracts which they were administering and then fi•audulently concealed these actions from the affected property owners. These usurping HOA members committed similar breaches of duty and fraud in the 2008 covenant contract refiling and these same members continue similarly by incrementally amending covenants via unauthorized alterations of the design regulations. In so doing these 86 acting members take away property owners rights without their knowledge or consent while unlawfully inuring the powers of the acting HOA members. Alternatively plead as many counts of US Postal Mail Fraud. 195. Acting HOA members have destroyed documents which could be used against them and Plaintiff Peter Thompson has been.damaged. 196. US Bank has abetted the civil rights conspiracy of the City by not producing requested documents which could be used to evidence negligence of the City in managing zoning documents of record. Additionally US Bank has breached contract by making loan a variable rate when the applied for terms were-for a fixed rate. US Ban1c has also breached contract by converting construction aspect of the loan package to principal and interest payments when the applied for contract allowed for as many extensions of the construction duration as Peter Thompson needed to complete the work. US Bank has concealed deviations from the agreed to terms by misleading supplemental documents and written responses to Plaintiffs communications. 197. Acting members of the HOA have conspired with their attorney Wayne Jennings to violate Peter Thompsons civil rights in the matter of DV 15-636 by abusing process in an attempt at ratification, by preventing Thompson from having a full and fair use of the legal system, by conspiring with the bench to ignore filed counter claims, by conspiring with the bench to commit fraud upon the court in 87 damaging Thompson with assessments of costs which Mr. Jennings had procedurally waived, all the preceding by Mr. Jennings abetting the acting members forgeries (Article of incorporation) in an effort to inflict money damages against Peter Thompson. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of each cause of action in all of the preceding paragraphs from 1 through 197 that the above captioned defendants collectively committed acts of oppression and abuse of power for various illegal reasons, including but not limited to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that as a result of all the foregoing, the Plaintiffs r family has suffered years of financial and or medical and or property damages and or non-monetary damages and or civil rights violations; Prayer for relief of the preceding; Wherefore, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court provide relief as would be typical and appropriate to all foregoing causes of action, compensatory, nominal and punitive damages where allowed by law for each of the foregoing causes of action and for any other relief deemed just by this Court and for costs. Count Seven: US Bank N.A. Breach of good faith and contract Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of fact, exhibits and statements on the preceding paragraphs into the following paragraphs 88 198. Plaintiff Peter Thompson's relationship with Defendant US Bank, N.A. was that of a 2nd generation, special relationship, of financial advisor ship with the Thorns of US Bank. 199. Defendant John Thorn explained to Plaintiff that US Bank had a construction loan program that included land funding, construction funding and permanent financing all in one approval process that would provide the Plaintiff with a 30 year fixed rate mortgage payment when the variable rate interest payment only construction aspect of the package converted to the 30 year fixed principle and interest payments. 200. Defendant John Thorn advised this program was only available to the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff made arrangements for a Contractor to make a contract with the Bank; rather than the Plaintiff getting an owner as builder construction loan as Plaintiff originally contacted Mr. Thorn about. Mr. John Thorn advised Plaintiff that owner as builder construction loans were not available with permanent fixed rate financing in a single closing loan package. Mr. Thorn advised if the owner builder financing option was chosen, there would be a variable rate construction loan and then another reapplication for a standalone long term fixed rate loan, this path had double closing costs. 201. Acting under the advice of Defendant John Thorn, Plaintiff agreed to move 89 forward in the direction recommend by US Bank N.A.. John Thorn issued a letter of loan approval to the Plaintiff for the recommended 30 year fixed rate loan on December 14th, 2007. 202. Following the advice of US Bank described above, Plaintiff Peter Thompson did locate a lot to build his home on, made construction documents and established verbal agreement with Martel Construction to be the General Contractor who would let the Plaintiff, as a subcontractor to the prime contractor, do the actual construction work for the Plaintiffs home himself. 203. Late January of 2008, Plaintiff Peter Thompson provided Defendant US Bank with construction documentation, including specific details as advised by John Thorn. These documents were small scale plans sufficient for US Bank to obtain an appraisal of the proposed construction and land purchase package. About the 14th of February, 2008, Defendant US Bank N.A. received the appraisal results they had previously ordered for the estimated value of the land and construction package proposed by the Plaintiff. 204. Pursuant to the above advice of US Bank's John Thorn, Plaintiff Peter Thompson did enter into contract with Martel Construction. The Contract with Martel Construction provided that Martel Construction was the General Contractor and the contract plainly stated that Plaintiff Peter Thompson would doing the construction work for Martel Construction. 90 205. About the 5th of February, 2008 Plaintiff Peter Thompson did meet with US Bank's John Thorn to collectively review the Contract from Martel Construction for the loan package. At this time it was noticed that the AIA contract erroneously said construction would be completed in one year. Plaintiff and Mr. Thorn knew construction would take a lot longer than one year. US Bank's John Thorn explained Plaintiff did not need to have the one year AIA contract term changed because US Bank would allow Plaintiff as many construction duration extensions as needed, Mr. Thorn advised there was no fixed limit on duration extensions of the construction phase of the contract. Per Mr. Thorn, Plaintiff would need to pay a duration extension fee and fill out a fortyl to purchase additional blocks of construction duration time, as needed, in 6 month increments. Plaintiff's loan package provided funding for the land transaction and little more than construction material costs. It was understood that Plaintiff would be providing the sweat equity over time to complete the proposed construction. 206. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that it was the large delta between the appraised values and the applied for construction funding amount that was the basis of US Bank's private decision not to require any down payment from Plaintiff for the building construction aspect of the loan. With funding that was essentially for material costs only, the sweat equity which Plaintiff contracted to invest in the property was going to take lengths of 91 time measured in years. It follows that Mr. Thorn's assurance there was no limit to the amount of construction duration extensions available to the Plaintiff was the most important aspect of the contract. It was upon this key aspect of the contract, that the eventual success of this contractual endeavor with US Bank depended. 207. During the conversations with US Bank's John Thorn above, Plaintiff Peter Thompson did inquire about the timing of the loan, funding, construction phase payments and Plaintiffs perceived need to sell their existing home before starting on the new construction. Plaintiff had set up a line of credit on his current home to make down payment for "skin in the game" that Plaintiff anticipated would be required by US Bank when the approved new home loan package was finalized. Plaintiff had also been making preparations to sell their existing home prior to building the new home. US Bank's John Thorn advised that the Plaintiff and his family could wait in selling their home until the new one was ready to move into. US Bank would just need a letter stating that the Plaintiff did intend to sell their first home after the new home was complete and John advised it would be helpful if the letter stated Plaintiffs intentions for anticipated proceeds fi-om the sale of Plaintiffs current home. US Bank's John Thorn did also make clear about this time that beyond minimal land closing cost, US Bank would not require any down payment for the new construction loan, if the loan were granted under the recommended loan 92 program . About this time US Bank's John Thorn did make clear to Plaintiff Peter Thompson that the Defendant US Bank was expecting big changes in the available loan packages, very soon, due to the economic outlook at the time and Mr. Thorn advised that Plaintiff needed to hurry up and close on the loan package if he wanted it and to lock in a favorable interest rate. 208. During the conversations described above, Plaintiff Peter Thompson did ask US Bank's John Thorn if Plaintiff should get private mortgage insurance. Defendant advised that with the loan to value ratios of the properties involved, the Plaintiff did not need to get PMI or that PMI was not required. 209. About. late February of 2008 Plaintiff Peter Thompson did meet with US Bank's John Thorn, to review the final mortgage contract. To Plaintiff, the contract read as though it was a variable rate loan. US Bank's John Thorn then advised that the variable rate language was just for the construction phase of the loan package. US Bank's John Thorn showed a part of the contract that demonstrated how the Plaintiffs loan rate would lock in that day, based the current interest rates, if the project were substantially complete that day. Mr. Thorn did explain that when the project was substantially complete or at a time near enough to being substantially complete, if there was any concern about rates going up, the loan could be converted to principle and interest payments 93 locking in the long term fixed rate. If the latter option was exercised Plaintiff would have to start making payments on the full amount of the total loan package under the fixed rate vs the variable rate during the construction phase that only applied to dispersed fiinds. 2,10. About February 15th, as advised by US Bank's John Thorn, Plaintiff Peter Thompson provided Defendant US Bank with the letter of intent to sell property of the Plaintiff at 665 Sycamore Lane. Based on recent appraisals and conversations with US Bank's John Thorn, Plaintiff understood he could anticipate equitable proceeds from the sale of the 665 Sycamore property. Per the advice of US Bank's John Thorn, Plaintiff did make a written statement within the letter of intent that proceeds from the sale of the property at 665 Sycamore Lane would be used to reduce the principal amount owed on the new construction loan when the Sycamore Lane property was sold. 211. About late February of 2008, Plaintiff Peter Thompson did enter into a multi phased construction loan package with US Bank N.A., per the terms explained by and agreed to with US Bank's John Thorn. 212. Plaintiff Peter Thompson did rely on his special relationship of 2nd generation long term financial advisor ship with the Thorn family and the above described advice and clarifications provided by Defendant John Thorn in understanding the contractual terms proposed by the standard form contract of US Bank N.A.. It was 94 by and per the terms described above that Plaintiff decided to enter into the loan agreement with US Bank N.A.. 213. Plaintiff was not advised of or made aware of the fact that though Mr. Thorn had advised Plaintiff he did not need mortgage insurance, that US Bank perceived the Plaintiffs circumstances such that US Bank themselves would in fact purchase mortgage insurance to secretly protect US Bank and only US Bank fi om the apparent risks taken by the Plaintiff in accepting various loans fiom US Bank. 214. Without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff Peter Thompson, Defendant US Bank N.A. did purchase from Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company, Insurance Certificate no. 24785079. 215. MGIC Certificate Number 24785079 was issued to US Bank for loans issued by the Defendant US Bank to the Plaintiff relative to Plaintiffs first home at 665 Sycamore Lane, Bozeman Montana. 216. About 2010, Plaintiff was about .75 Million dollars in debt. At this time, about .625 Million was for loans issued by Defendant US Bank N.A. to Plaintiff Peter Thompson. 217. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's insurance company became suspicious of US Bank's reasons for selectively insuring some loans and not others and that as a result of these suspicions of skullduggery, the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company, retained the services of a private 95 investigator, see exhibit 16. 218. Having become unemployed during the economic down turn that hit full bottom in 2009; about 2010 the Plaintiff could no longer afford payments on all the loans owed to the Defendant US Bank. Plaintiff secured an Occupancy Permit in September of 2010 for the lower area of the New Construction loan package home and tried to get permission fi-om US Bank to rent out the first home to keep up with all payments to US Bank. 219. Rent on the 665 Sycamore Lane property would have covered the related US Bank payments. Plaintiff could manage to keep up with payments on all the US Bank loans when they moved into the new construction, if Plaintiff was allowed to rent the 665 Sycamore Lane property. Plaintiffs requests for permission of US Bank to rent out the Sycamore Lane property were denied. 220. Having been denied permission by US Bank to rent the Sycamore lane property, Plaintiff and his family worked very hard to sell the property, doing about 30 property showings in less than a year. Plaintiffs efforts to show and sell the 665 Sycamore lane property did slow construction efforts on the new home construction work. 221. Plaintiff wrote a hardship letter and tended short sale offers to US Batik that would have fully paid off the first mortgage and most of the 2nd mortgage on the Sycamore Lane property. Defendant US Bank denied several short sale offers, 96 foreclosed on the property and then later resold the property for substantially less than the short sale offers diligently and painstakingly provided by the Plaintiff 222. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that US Bank did not have a real interest in covering the first mortgage via short sale offers and US Bank had in fact bought their secret insurance policy to protect themselves against foreseeable losses of the second mortgage note which was owned by US Bank, ie, US Bank needed their "loss" on the second mortgage to be big enough to trip their insurance policy threshold to collect on a larger loss amount. This is the only logical explanation of why US Bank declined short sale offers that came close to paying off the full value of all mortgages at 665 Sycamore Lane. 223. Late in 2010, Plaintiff and his family were evicted from the foreclosed property at 665 Sycamore lane and fully moved into the lower area of the new home, package financed by US Bank, at 2988 Blackbird Drive. 224. About 2011, after Defendant US Bank N.A. facilitated the prompt foreclose of the 665 Sycamore Lane property by denial of several reasonable short sale offers and refusal to allow the Plaintiff to rent out the property. The Defendant US Bank N.A., did secretly from the Plaintiff, make claim and collect on the insurance policy purchased by the Defendant to protect the Defendant from risks perceived by the Defendant in lending the Plaintiff money. 225. About October of 2011, Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation did, for 97 undisclosed reasons, retain the private investigative services of Armitage Research Information Solutions to conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances related to the above described insurance claim of the Defendant US Bank N.A.. This relative to MGIC Certificate Number 24785079 and the Defendant's claim for losses relative to lending Plaintiff Peter Thompson money secured by Plaintiffs property at 665 Sycamore Lane. 226. About 2011, Defendant US Bank N.A, did Breach the agreed Ripon term of contract that Plaintiff Peter Thompson could have as many duration extensions to the construction phase of the loan package, as needed; and Defendant US Bank then demanded regular principle and interest payments for the full value of the partially disbursed construction loan from the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Thompson alleges violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent of all contracts in the preceding breach \alteration of the originally agreed upon terms of the multi-phase New construction loan package contract. The preceding breach of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing is evidenced by the fact that US Bank N.A. was unwilling to give any consideration to the fact that the agreed upon availability of construction duration extensions took on the appearance of being more than necessary because of the years long good faith effort of Plaintiff, in what Plaintiff falsely believed to be his and 98 Dcfendant US 13ank's shared interest in not suffering financial losses relative to the 665 Sycamore Lane property. See exhibit 16. 227. The Defendant US Bank N.A. took the action of 226 above, in the face of objections of the Plaintiff Peter Thompson. When the Defendant US Bank N.A., took the action described above, there was about 80K dollars remaining to draw on the construction aspect of the loan package. Per the Plaintiffs understanding of the teens explained by Mr. Thorn prior to closing, the Defendant was allowed to bill Plaintiff interest for these not yet disbursed funds because Plaintiff was supposed to be now enjoying the benefit of having fixed the remaining 30 year interest rate based on lending rates of 2011. 228. Prior to the Defendant US Bank N.A. compelling Plaintiff Peter Thompson to principle and interest payments, against the will of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff had been allowed to make interest only payments that were roughly half what the principle and interest payments now demanded by the Defendant became. 229. When making interest only payments the Plaintiff was able to keep construction moving forward and keep up with payments on the mortgage contract with the Defendant. 230. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant US Bank's forced change to monthly principal and interest payments during the construction phase of 99 the loan package is a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that represents a breach of contract, this count alternately pleaded as an intentional and consensual cancelation or material alteration of the agreed upon terms of the contract which extinguishes Defendant's rights of contract going forward. AlItgrations to,the CQr tract "The intentional destruction, cancellation, or material alteration of a written contract by a party entitled to any benefit under it or with his consent extinguishes all the executory obligations of the contract in his favor against the pasties ,,N1ho do not consent to act." M.C.A. Section 28-2-1703 (1). 231. In 2016, Plaintiffs monthly payments unexpectedly increased by about 900 dollars per month. By late 2016 Plaintiff was struggling very hard to keep up with the monthly payment demands of the Defendant. 232. In the 2016 to 2017 time period Plaintiff regularly received nonprofit solicitations that evidenced knowledge of Plaintiffs financial struggles and offered that the Malting Home Affordable act program could provide Plaintiff new fixed monthly payments, including taxes and insurance, of less than 800 dollars per month. 233. Plaintiff participated in consumer credit counseling and was advised to apply for the HAMP program before expiration late in 2016. Plaintiff was advised that the recommended HAMP modification was only available for those who were 100 current with their payments without any late payments for a given time. Plaintiff was advised by the nonprofit counselor that though Plaintiff was current with mortgage payments, recent late payments could be a risk and to make sure Plaintiff stayed current during the HAMP application process because be the end of the process, Plaintiff could age out the prior late payment during the process of qualifying. 234. Plaintiff diligently completed applications and was denied by US Bank because Plaintiff was current with monthly payments. Defendant US Bank advised that if Plaintiff could not afford the payments Plaintiff should sell their home before things got worse and Plaintiff lost control of the property. 235. Plaintiff wrote US Bank N.A. requesting reconsideration of their denial described above. Plaintiff argued that Defendant US Bank was acting in bad faith because the objective of HAMP was to help people who suffered long term income losses, due to the recent recession, to maintain ownership of their homes vs having to sell their home to pay off unscrupulous banks who played a primary role in causing the financial crisis to begin with, 236. In the letter to US Bank described in 1235, Plaintiff advised US Bank that they had breached the terms of the contract by not allowing Plaintiff further construction duration extensions; Plaintiff therefore requested Defendant US Bank to allow Plaintiff a period of time wherein Plaintiff was allowed to make interest 101 only payments, as during the construction phase of the loan, because with the reduced monthly payments Plaintiff could spend more time working on his home finally complete construction. 237. In the letter to US Bank described in�235, Plaintiff advised US Bank of their breach of the terms of the contract by not fixing the long term interest rate when the loan was converted to principal and interest payments. Plaintiff requested Defendant US Bank agree to fix the long term interest rate in a manner consistent with the RAMP modification that was applied for. 238. Defendant US Bank replied to Plaintiffs letter described in the preceding 3 paragraphs, stating that entitlement to the long term fixed rate loan term was subject to criteria other than agreed to with Mr. Thorn. 239. Per the foregoing, Defendant US Bank was previously advised of the special relationship between Mr. Thorn and the Plaintiff, of Mr. Thorn's defining of the terms of contract to Plaintiff and Defendant US Bank evidenced its consensual alteration \ breach of the original terms of contract via Defendant US Batik N.A.'s April 13, 2017 letter to Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, US Bank N.A.'s, foregoing actions, Plaintiff has suffered monetary and emotional damages. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory, nominal and punitive damages in 102 an amount to be determined at trial. Prayer for Relief Plaintiff moves this honorable court to issue an order for such other and further relief as deemed just and appropriate under the circumstances; and for declaratory judgement that Defendant US Bank N.A. by breaching 1 consensually altering the terms of the contract, has extinguished all executory obligations of the contract in Defendant US Bank's favor against Plaintiff Thompson who did not consent to the acts of the Defendant. AbQmtim to the Contract "The intentional destruction, cancellation, or inaterial alteration of a written contract by a party entitled to any benefit under it or with his consent extinguishes all the executaty obligations of the contract in his favor agaillst the parties who do not consent to act." M.C.A. Section 28-2-1703 103 Dated this .14th day of March 2019. Peter Thompson Pro Se Litigant 1 Peter Thompson am a party in this action, and as such have personal knowledge of the facts and matters herein the responses above, except where stated to be based upon information and belief, and where so stated I have named the source of the information, and believe the same to be true. '-"'"Pet ompson Subscribed and sworn to before me this f day of arc 1 _ Si t re: Notary Public for the State tit'Montana ��• � KYLE T.WHITE PrintName:Notary Public for the.State of Montana NOTARY PUBLIC for the state vil-. Montana Residing in f3cze, 'o2 �.,�E �� Residing at Bozeman,Montana v �p� My commission Expires My commission expires 8 'F6F Mna July 31,20221 104 Exhibit 1 CATTAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2 - ZONE MAP AMENDMENT 1 E Y 0F BOZEMAN I A TRACT O'F LAND REiNG UP lit Oir FlINOR SLJBOIi'IS10lr LO` A OF MINOR SUBDIL1SQ-14 'J(;. 1458 AND T t PRf1'_i?�' 1 i; ^RIBCL) ON i l-J. i%L,qT OF CORD 'r'L4s .��PAGE i 15';: S ! L?JCAM') THE is .''4 & ': i 94 1%c OF S C?i01: `,-. ?9F_ n Y.'d-Aa„ GA_LIVri7+f MOINTA 1a1 I TO _r I -. -1 o, 11� �� t• :CJNi?•IG F7:IL;NIDA1i1' _. I 1 ;?tli•!ihir:� !:93),< .'eC I?f.`, b'.._I-„. l .NupTh I.hAS Lit' 8, ,- ., :t _. 1 ' rllNrJk =NON uw � E` l+ => y 3 2 uOUfilClkl?Y ,D a ON'A;r;S 21.59 Acres. , I C f. Is 1 EI 11 i tiIN�F;Si.B =1!1 j 1 A f' d`f'.31E Cr W1< $ 5EA+/;4 5t•:::.V!!iii9 S\:Q:vic:py NG, •a39 i 1•�.r,u st,e +.as 1 i •.\ _` c...3A CON fAM!S sn:.uH ids t tJ.56 ACRES P/J:vT A.:Pst'T OF SCG:NNWY P-.`?(nest 'e5g - - .•1 PV'•r"3.•f'h+:,�i 8M1:!rlii .,iPii C. 9r..'v, �-7 1 1-1..ROE T:.!A. �; ��j Ji 14 n_ r • ,f, . t: 81 I f•i 1 - L23 U;D9 ',:t r RFaii<1N fi-3A CUNT!J p15 .?,' i _4 3.^5 aCRrS 1 �. (�,i't• .F 1 i--'.�iz:;5.1,2<„L __.�.........-....,'_`-�,1 :.1 !y;nit + TA9'4548"E 454.2-0 1 t '�, :.4 _ _liN�in'=.6'W __i•)O f r f ' F 1'"ir i�GG'4y 1"!; _......__7Eii_89: WCSI i.Vri P.1• Of 1. - t —._......_. JVlr3H ytlEt. !4!Y 11 1 ?�_finp•c-l�'J'i7 r"._ -91.r•� , S'> Sr.'oF tdT:: i.3,. Iv89'i'}, ,— _r_.._.. L3.3"•' NG3'13,52 t ......... .. ... ... ... ..._ ..__ _.... .. l !SJ,. 584":+7`5:'i L 9 ! SGG J 5!rr ....i..__... r:.l.,.' i 5Ec as •. fi�.; U01,'taUA..D\ 159 =ia :• r%4-F OF 13E.194mN^. 4'T. ..CONTAINS 33.61 OCRES +'s741r•,I qE 167 x i'S.... �--3'se"s+• _ _._.io Oa'; 1, S9 ..�• / '' V10.`UH SUB. 145a' I r ;•. 'u,�.. = i_ ;..i N7.`,•'S'1'2=-f. �-7G6:?1,.I iA1f LINE 6' !pJi 1A �...._. _.........._.l_._.-. un-wtit SUB .0 r`j8_ g59-3 7`4 i W ni•:t U,4.t1f_tt' i.t +i 113 •iB9'4 f'Srl"'ti 1'dr3.°7 .;RA 589'4 i'4aiY '324.6G ? 2G SQG'1315 i'i i_3? tK)R< `SCUTn col[OF i^T.A �_.. _ q _ M u7.roA SUB:!a3n 22 [Gti.1;s 5i�Y .� 1 3 599',}6'11Vg''F 5iMJ.4'' 20 T!40 1iSz a-- -- 16;y4: L r,':R V E TALE F _, 5v':. _ ' '-� .- '!l,F-LTAAn,G;EARC LiNGii C'HG 6[i6?R!MG 3463 pLE'?'14�?N.? 27 52T295[1 LL -- 1u5.3% _....._._.._ -_ _.__.�. r _ _ s Q (' N77'53.55'E__.._..... 36.5'L'. T ""<8�I 5�•"a9'3�'.'-?''Y: 2d9�i 2 97 U4' G9'4$2a 123;'4Y _-__ 514"1 24[ 124.3G_�.__..i L29 51 34'2='T3 f 32 St". - 780.40� 0?'S5'43 33.48' N2S19 6 NN S3.4T - -i t L3(: h59.37'a1'L' _ �97'm C4'Ti '64.40' i)9'1t'5�.+" —�� •.25- '2_3� 5W4I3 — ?75.D9 _C:31_ _S3L':22'19'E 23b.Y4 ....i:: . __. 1..C ._......7$4.:N1'..,,L.}d•24']'f'...:...1 i96.16�.-____-_�t•1?7'd9 N4"W_._, 145_Gf � L32 _ N89'aC�UB�W ..� 1 33 Soo,13,52-i, 34.04 1 1-3a 559"37'`t iy—_ 174.fifi - aotwr a,v R prrA1VN&y. CNB OATS ArYii FFELOTYCrIEtK- 6VHVEYEU Bt" 84 .!09 No. 1 -6 EFECOBWN TD&1611 WOMAS, DP:AN A HOBICM, INC. moommmd C7 U[7lCNk3 4rt3`4ririNtB-B03EWy-W'LFSPCI_ wu.i ciiv� Exhibit 2 [ALL FIELDS CUSTOMIZABLE 2 MIS# 142253 —� Acreage -1 Acre Status Expired Water City Type SUBDIVISION LOT Horse Not Allowed Address TBD BLACKBIRD DR Wtr Amen Yes Address 2 LOT 3 BLOCK 9 CATTAIL SUB Zoning R2-Residential 2-househcid, City BOZEMAN Medium Density State MT Zip 59718 Area Boz N ofMain/E of19th 1NE Class LAND Asking Price $117,000 Sale/Rent For Sale GENERAL Number Of Acres 0.2630 Price Per Acre 444866.92 Apx Lot Sz .263 Subdiv. Cattail Creek Directions Cattail St,Left on Blackbird Dr Zoning District yes Covenant yes Approx SgFt 11455 Price per SgFt 10.21 Days On Market 172 [FEATURES WATER AMENITIES Stream E ANCIAL Apx Tax$ 466.30 Tax Year 2006 PUBLIC INFORMATION Ideal building lot that backs to open space and creek.Close to the park,with beautiful mountain vews and an in-town setting,this 11,455+/-SF lot is hard to b eat! ADDITIONAL PICTURES DISCLAIMER Information provided by Gallatin Association of REALTORS/Southwest Montana MLS is compiled from miscellaneous sources,Neither the Association, listing brokers,agents or subagents are responsible for its accuracy.MLS users should be advised and should advise prospective purchasers to verify all information in regard to the property by their own independent investigation prior to submitting an offer to purchase the property.Copyright 2007 Southwest Montana MLS. Page 106 of 270 Page 106 of 270 Exhibit 3 CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPME Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman,net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net December 29,2011 Wittich Law Firm,PC 602 Ferguson Ave.,Ste,5 Bozeman,MT 59718 Subject Property: 2988 Blackbird Drive Bozeman,MT 59718 Note: THERE IS NO RECORD OF 2990 BLACKBIRD DRIVE BEING ISSUED AS A VALID ADDRESS. To Whom It May Concern: In'response to your request for information regarding the above-referenced property,we have researched our files and present the following: 1. The current zoning classification for the subject property is: R-1 (Residential Single Household Low Density District)-The text of this district is available through the city's website. The previous zoning designation of the property was R-2(Residential Single Household,Medium Density District)and was modified by application#Z-02131 Unified Development Ordinance Zone Code and Zone Map Amendment adopted through Ordinance No.1604 which approved a new Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code as well as a new official Zoning Map with an effective date of January 1,2004, Please see the attached copy of the old R-2(Residential Single Household,Medium Density District)description. Please further note that the old text limits uses to one-household dwellings with accessory dwelling units as a conditional use. Two household dwellings are not permitted. 2. According to the zoning ordinances and regulations of this district,the use of the subject property as a single- household structure is a: ® Permitted Use by Right ❑ Permitted Use by Special/Specific Use Permit(see comments,or attached approval documentation) ❑ Permitted Use by Conditional Use Permit(see comments,or attached approval documentation) ❑ LegaI Non-Conforming Use(use was existing prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance/code) ❑ Non-Permitted Use 3. Conformance:Per current zoning ordinances and regulations applicable to the subject property,the current structure(s)is: ❑ Legal Conforming(complies with,or is otherwise exempt from,applicable zoning regulations,including parking) ❑ Legal Nun-Conforming(does not meet the current zoning requirements due to amendments,re-zoning,variance granted or other changes,but was legal when established.See comments) ® Non-Conforming(see comments) Comment: Conformance requires either the removal of the temporary basement dwelling when the main dwelling is completed or approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit. 4. Information regarding variances,special permits/exceptions,ordinances or conditions: ® There do not appear to be any variances,special permits/exceptions,ordinances or conditions that apply to the subject property. ❑ The following apply to the subject property, _Variance plann%gP.IQarQ7P subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing a grant administration • neigi MAVMo�JMation Exhibit 3 _Special Permit/Exception _Ordinance Conditions Comment: You will need to check with the Building Department(406-582-2375)and the Fire Department(406-582- 2350)to be sure the structure is in compliance with Departmental regulations. 5. Rebuild:In the event of casualty,in whole or in part,the structure located on the subject property: ❑ May be rebuilt in its current form through the Conditional Use Permit review process(i.e.no loss of square footage,same footprint,with drive through(s),if applicable). A Site Plan/Certificate of Appropriateness Application and approval would be required. ® May not be rebuilt in its current form,except upon satisfaction of certain conditions,limitations or requirements. Including,but not limited to,the removal of the temporary basement dwelling or approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit. 6. Code Violations Information: ❑ There do NOT appear to be any outstanding/open zoning or building code violations that apply to the subject property. ® The following outstanding building code violation#09-1088 applies to the subject property: a 't Comment: You will steed to check with the Building Department(406-582-2375)and the Fire Department(406-582- 2350)to view each Department's records. 7. Certificate of Occupancy,status: ® A Certificate of Occupancy is pending based on required improvements being completed for the subject property. ❑ A valid Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the subject property. ❑ A valid Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the subject property(approximate issuance date );however,we are unable to locate a copy in our records.The absence of a Certificate of Occupancy will not give rise to any enforcement action affecting the property. ❑ Certificates of Occupancy for projects constructed prior to the year 1996 are no longer on file with this office.The absence of a Certificate of Occupancy will not give rise to any enforcement action affecting the property.A Certificate of Occupancy will only be required for new construction. ❑ A Certificate of.Occupancy is not required for the subject property. ❑ A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy has been issued,pending completion of related site improvements. Comment: Including,but not limited to,the removal of the temporary basement dwelling or approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit. Further comments regarding the subject property: File#Z-02131 Unified Development Ordinance Zone Code and Zone Map Amendment can be reviewed through request to the office of Mike Lilly,Attorney 1 W.Main St. Bozeman,MT 59715-587-3181 Mr.Lilly presently has the physical file in his possession. This information was researched on December 28,2011,by the undersigned,per request and as a public service. The undersigned certifies that the above information contained herein is believed to be accurate and is based upon,or relates to the information supplied by the requestor. The Authority assumes no liability for errors and omissions. All information was obtained from public records,which may be inspected during regular business hours. Ene: Copy of Chapter 18.16 B.M.C.as adopted by Ordinance#1604 with cover,Ordinance#1604,Public Hearing Notices (2),Copy of Chapter 18.16 B.M.C.effective date 7/10/02 cover with table of contents and chapter ZONING AUTHORITY: By: Printed Name: Chris Saunders Title: Assistant Director Department: Bozeman City Planning and Community Development Phone: 406-582-2260 Fax: 406-582-2263 CC: Building Inspection Division-Code Enforcement Division Page 108 of 270 Page 2 Page 108 of 270 Exhibit 4 PETER THOMPSON 2988 Blackbird Drive Bozeman, Montana 59718 406-570-0268 thoinpsonOO89@rnsn.com IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN COUNTY OF GALLATIN, STATE OF MONTANA BOZEMAN,MT Case No. TK 15-03459 CITY OF BOZEMAN, POST HEARING MEMORANDUM IN Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL and PER THE DOCTRINE OF UNCLEAN HANDS PETER THOMPSON, Defendant. COMES Now Defendant Peter Thompson,before the Court.The Defendant reserves the right to supplement this brief by additional memorandum before, after or at any hearing. In the matter of TK-15-03459, the Defendant's unclean hands motion alleges the Plaintiff s revoca- tion of the Defendant's Certificate of Occupancy was illegal. The following case quotes are slightly off topic in that they speak to the topic of illegal revocation from the remedies perspective in the appellate court of the 9th Circuit. The case quotes below are on topic in providing the controlling Court's elements demonstrating the illegality of deprivation of a property right without due process and the responsibility of the Parties involved to know the law relative to their professional work. Page 109 of 270 Page 109 of 270 Exhibit 4 T.E. Mr. Risk and Mrs. Murray are required to know the that the availability of a post deprivation hearing is not sufficient to meet the legal requirements for deprivation of a property right without due process and as such their arguments that the IBC and or the TRC allows grants them such au- thority are meritless; both under the US and MT constitutions as well as the MCA rule of law. Quotes from: United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit ARMENDARIZ v, PENMAN Decided: February 7, 1996 "... We consider whether the city officials responsible for the administration of this program can be sued for depriving the property owners of substantive due process.... According to the plaintiffs, the City effectuated these purposes by"faking" the existence of serious housing code violations purportedly discovered on the plaintiffs'properties ....to invoice the City building official's emergency powers to...revoke the plaintiffs.....certificates of occupancy." Cause is required in the public interest to revoke a certificate of occupancy. Mrs. Murray has stated safety concerns of children in the matter of TK-03459, as follows: Upon the last inspection by.the City *qe we�.e s�ti life safety issues in the unfinished home (unfinished eleotrical outl s tocatec next' to. childWs Or etc.),. Mrs, Murray's statement above is not supported by material fact and is contradicted for material content and the described time by Code Enforcement Officer Frojae's notes and notices. i s09 000("088,EVitod omtll. s the 10t o trtril r1. .r� l if~ #uad ) +lid p w►tie1� Y F _ Ids t12E freeze elmw tom.r�utt�tt » 91£ . Page 110 of 270 Page 110 of 270 Exhibit 4 ....... wit Owm des : .: :..: ... . . a t ;d Date MA ..., Page 111 of 270 Page 111 of 270 I Exhibit 4 Quotes from: United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit ARMENDARIZ v. PENMAN Decided: February 7, 1996 "The owners filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., stating the following four claims: 1) that closure of their property without pre-deprivation notice, a hearing, or exigent circumstances, and without adequate post-deprivation relief, violated their right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment;... The complaint originally named dozens of city officials.... Only six defendants remain: William Holcomb, the City's Mayor; James Penman, the City Attorney; Al Boughey and Larry Reed, two successive Directors of Planning and Building Services..... These defendants filed motions for summary judgment, claiming they were protected by qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established federal constitutional or stal- utory rights..... The district court denied the motions, both as to qualified immunity and liability, and the defendants filed this interlocutory appeal..... A three judge panel of our court affirmed the district court's de- nial of the defendants'request for qualified immunity on the plaintiffs'procedural due process claim........ Thus,... the panel concluded that"[t]he defendants have qualified immun- ity....to....claims, except the procedural due process claims against defendants Larry Reed and James Penman". Armendariz, 31 F.3d at 863..... We do not revisit the panel's rulings that the"plaintiffs have stated a claim for procedural due pro- cess violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with regard to defendants Holcomb, Boughey,Reed, and Penman,"id. at 866, or that those defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability on that claim"because the law was clearly established at the time Holcomb,Penman, Reed and Boughey acted and it was unreasonable for them to believe that their actions were constitutional", id. at 869.....The portions of the panel's opinion dealing with these points remain in place as the law of the circuit." Holcomb above,was the Mayor at the time during the matter above, our current Mayor, Carson Taylor was not in charge at either time when Peter Thompson's Certificate of Occupancy was sum- marily revoked without due process. Bozeman City Attorneys Greg Sullivan,Tim Cooper and Kyla Murray represent parties in the matter of TK-15-03459, comparable to Penman above. Penman is the City Attorney above, who's actions have been confirmed thru several appeals as violating the," law of the circuit ", this is the law of our circuit, the 9th. Page 112 of 270 Page 112 of 270 Exhibit 4 Quotes from: United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit ARMENDARIZ v. PENMAN Decided: Febxuaty 7, 1996 ""The Fourth Amendment,made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, see Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 30, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1628, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963),provides that"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". "A `seizure' of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen,466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct, 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984) (footnote omitted). The Fourth Amendment protects property interests as well as expectations of privacy. Soldal, 506 U.S. at 62-69, 113 S.Ct. at 544-48. To the extent that the defendants, in an attempt to dislodge res- idents suspected of criminal acts,interfered with the plaintiffs' possessory interest in their apartment buildings under the emergency provisions of the housing code, the reasonableness of the seizure is in question, since those provisions are not designed as law enforcement measures. Cf. Alexander v. San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1361 (9th Cir.1994) ("[A]n administrative search [to determine compliance with health and building codes] may not be converted into an instrument which serves the very different needs of law enforcement officials."). Thus, the plaintiffs' claim that the City faked violations of the housing code in order to interfere with the plaintiffs'interests in their properties for purposes unrelated to health and sa�utation seeks redress for"a particular sort of government behavior", Albright, 510 U.S. at----, 114 S.Ct. at 813, against which the Fourth Amendment protects. Indeed, the Supreme Court stated explicitly in Soldal that"the right against unreasonable seizures would be no less transgressed if the seizure of the house was undertaken to collect evidence, verify compliance with a housing regulation, effect an eviction by the police, or on a whim,for no reason at all." 506 U.S. at 69, 113 S.Ct. at 548 (emphasis added)."" "PETROPLEX INTERNATIONAL, LLC V. ST. JAMES PARISH. Civil Action No. 15-140. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. October 19, 2015" Defendants in this matter positioned as follows: "Parish President Timothy Roussel;Parish Planning/Permitting Supervisor Ryan Donadieu" Page 113 of 270 Page 113 of 270 Exhibit 4 Stop Work Order as SWO: "LAW AND ANALYSIS... II. Qualified immunity: Roussel and Donadieu Plaintiffs have asserted personal capacity § 1983 claims against Defendants Timothy Roussel and Ryan Donadieu for their actions in issuing the SWO. Roussel and Donadieu assert that qualified im- munity applies to shield them from suit for the issuance of the SWO without a hearing either before or after the order's issuance. Qualified immunity serves to "shield government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly es- tablished at the time of the challenged conduct."3' "Once a defendant raises the defense of quali- fied immunity, 'the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the offi- cial's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law."' 2 In Saucier v. Katz, the Supreme Court promulgated a two-step analysis to determine if an official has stepped outside the bounds of qualified immunity.031 Under that test, the initial inquiry is whether the Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation.0 If established, the next inquiry is whether the defendant's conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the conduct occurredJ151 In Pearson v. Callahan, the Court retreated somewhat from this rigid two-step inquiry, giving courts leave to decide which prong to consider first. A. Allegation of a Constitutional Violation Plaintiffs complaint alleges violations of Plaintiffs procedural due process rights arising out the is- suance of the SWO without hearing. To allege a violation of procedural due process,Plaintiff must show the deprivation of a protected property interest by a person acting under the color of state law without hearing or meaningful opportunity to be heard. 3? The parties do not contest that Roussel or Donadieu were acting under color of state law during the relevant events." The parties in TK-15-03459 do not dispute that Peter Thompson did not have a pre or post depriva- tion hearing. Parties stipulate to this fact? Yes : No "Defendants, however, assert that Plaintiffs Iacked the requisite constitutionally protected property interest necessary to support a procedural due process claim, and advance two arguments in support of their position. First,they argue that the Resolution never conferred a "legitimate claim of entitle- ment" to develop the property at issue. Alternatively,Defendants argue that, to the extent that a property right did exist, it terminated by operation of law due to Plaintiffs' alleged noncompliance with the terms of the Resolution. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn." Page 114 of 270 Page 114 of 270 Exhibit 4 Plaintiff has similarly argued in TK-15-03459 that no property right was ever established as the is- sued Certificate of Occupancy was allegedly, "temporary" and that Bob Risk gave notice of time- lines after the original C of O was issued. Under this Court's order compelling Plaintiff to fulfill the discovery requests of the Defendant in the matter of TK-15-03459, the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence supporting the statement that C of O 10-10130 was applied for or issued as a temporary C of O. The Court is in possession of IRC code snippets previously provided by the Plaintiff in the matter of CR2014-00070 which list the re- quired statements of a temporary C of O;no such statements are present in the discovery material provided by the plaintiff in the matter of TK-15-03459. "PETROPLEX INTERNATIONAL, LLC V. ST. JAMES PARISH.... " 1. Existence of the Property Right Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not alleged a constitutional violation because Petroplex did not have a constitutionally protected property interest. Defendants argue that the Resolution did not grant Petroplex, a lessee, with a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to build a petroleum farm. As a result, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs could have no constitutionally protected property interest. For an interest to qualify as a protected property interest, an individual must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.38 .... "[p]rivileges, licences, certificates and franchises qualify as property in- terests for purposes of procedural due process."IM"[O]nce issued, a license or permit cannot be taken away by the State without due process."M The Resolution gave Petroplex the right to develop the property, subject to certain limited conditions.As a result,Plaintiff invested significant time and resources into the development of the property. Plaintiffs allege that the Resolution was sufficient to confer the right to develop the property, and that they were in compliance with its terms. Indeed, on the face of the Resolution, the Plaintiffs are authorized to proceed with the development of the prop- erty, subject to the conditions contained therein. The Resolution constitutes a permit in this respect. Plaintiffs have, therefore, alleged a constitutionally protected property right. 2. Termination of Property Right Defendants offer as an alternative that any right Petroplex bad in development of the property had terminated. Defendants argue that the Resolution granted Petroplex a conditional right to develop Page 115 of 270 Page 115 of 270 Exhibit 4 the property, and that because Plaintiffs were not in compliance with the provisions of the Resolu- tion any property interest in development terminated by operation of law.... Defendants argument rests on the conclusion that Petroplex failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution. They aver that plaintiffs have failed to make a 'particularized showing'that they were in compliance with the Resolution terms. This argument begs the question: when was the particular- ized showing supposed to be made?Per the terms of the Resolution, approval only terminated on certain conditions--conditions that Plaintiffs allege they fulfilled.[41] The Parish was without un- fettered discretion to terminate the approval. Plaintiffs,therefore,had a constitutionally protected property interest in the Resolution...." In the matter of TK-15-03459, the Plaintiff relies on their breach of a written agreement of Chief Building official Bob Risk in the Plaintiffs 2013 summary revocation of Peter Thompsons Certifi- cate of occupancy. In the Plaintiffs 2011 summary revocation of C of O 10-10130, the plaintiff relied on describing the C of O issued on September 24th,2010 as Temporary and thus expired and went on to erroneously revoke Building permit no. 08-7435 as expired and then later apologized for the mistake. Iwo , t1t My 27020j1:j_jj1zj2 #14 '` : .. :. inspoct s ' -01A ' else . 1 . fed: Page 116 of 270 Page 116 of 270 Exhibit 4 P e 282 of:43i8; fl BID P0:Sox 1230 8mmall 80171,4230 ... AIUiUiF,Psa%RxYfh#:.-ffUfu F31VlSIi7J4 . i�+lay 2 , 1111 rtllleri hei r 1W.. timber 7i 7149iJ Ii9(337..68.97:268 Pebr'T OM'.on 1�2�UIC.iu>�1n st.:suite 1i�5 . Soxernan,Mt:507.15 .. PY t e:Bulldlt Permit#08.7436 at 2988 8lackbfrd t?r, " 'The'.pufpar, of this letter is to advise you.lh t btiildih petvrilt i4 74 ti eicpit i bn u t2q,..: . d try ineciivity an the project You are turther-A N16d tie..;tho tetrmpolpft eertificate of odoupai^ y'isatted .for d basement has::bew revdkad.:tiy the Chief N1109,Official. The bai t epl vptl ins for ti"ie. Wvto. irt:l"+s AMY ;2i1:1 � i1.t tneana o6rmlt#.o& 743 his expV d l 8e01100. �oUdo csf i6 diniitlsstrative tulas` t Nlonfiane end Section 1.06.5 of the 2046 triferhsitionsl:l+tesl.06htiat:. de status: every:per rafC J sir d eJf become It vefxt It the work.... eutlrnri<xar b+: rmJt Js:sus tided rtr ataat cJpu�i�d.l r a psrrcxl ref 18CJ days attar the time the wptk is ourrtmme» : . : ..:.. :, '. ... . .. owing. re ini01 of pej ht.t1R1f8.-Mb i.buikng iVisioh wiil.infant 30 days 4o wthplete the hoUse,discr n lnue oc panty., �f 1he.t ei ient aid remove tha basemertt.kitchen. Th kyq..ibryr irp t f. in: ': i : Paula "PETROPLEX INTERNATIONAL,LLC V. ST. 3AMES PARISH.... "....According to Plaintiffs' complaint, Plaintiffs expended substantial resources in development of the property in reliance on the Resolution. Roussel and Donadieu issued the SWO despite Plaintiffs' Page 117 of 270 Page 117 of 270 Exhibit 4 repeated request for a meeting prior to its issuance and repeatedly denied a post-SWO hearing. Fi- nally, Plaintiffs contend that they were at all times in compliance with the Resolution,which served as a valid work permit. As a result, Plaintiffs allege that Roussel and Donadieu violated their "con- stitutionally protected property rights" by prohibiting work on the property without a hearing or a meaningful opportunity to be heard." "It is well established "that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest."[42] Indeed, "[a]n essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property'be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case."'[43] The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately pled a constitutional violation by Roussel and Donadieunamely, a violation of procedural due process. The first prong of the Sauc- ier test is therefore satisfied. B. "Clearly Established" Constitutional Right Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiffs have pled a constitutional violation,such violation does not run afoul of clearly established constitutional rights. The Fifth Circuit, citing applicable Supreme Court precedent,has stated: To be 'clearly established' for purposes of qualified immunity, '[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."' In practice, this means that "whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful action generally turns on the 'objective legal rea- t sonableness'of the official's action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." This court has repeatedly held that objective reasonableness in a qualified immunity context is a question of law for the court to decide, not an issue of fact. For a plaintiff to establish objective unreasonableness and overcome a qualified immunity defense,he must satisfy two inquiries. First, a plaintiff must show "the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation. Second, a plaintiff must demonstrate that"the con- duct of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in the light of that then clearly established law."U Actions of administrative officials are protected by qualified immunity unless the tight at issue is defined by "controlling authority" or a "robust consensus of persuasive authority."5 Plaintiff alleges a violation of the protections of procedural due process protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that they were unjustly deprived of their property interest in developing the property without a meaningful opportunity to be heard ei- ther before or after the issuance of the SWO, despite their compliance with the terms of the Resolu- tion. The Supreme Court has consistently held "that some form of hearing is required before an in- dividual is finally deprived of a property interest."M Moreover, the principle that permits, licenses, and franchises qualify as protected property interests has been recognized in the Fifth Circuit for decades.0 Finally, there is a "robust consensus of persuasive authority" defining this procedural due process right. Courts nationwide have repeatedly held that land use permits,such as the one at issue here, are cognizable property interests, and that the issuance of a SWO triggers procedural due process protections.LM Page 118 of 270 Page 118 of 270 Exhibit 4 The Court is further persuaded by Jabary v. City of Allen,....There, the court held that the necessity for notice and a hearing prior to the deprivation of the property right in a certificate of occupancy was a clearly established constitutional right and that defendants were therefore not entitled to the protection of qualified immunity.r491 At oral argument, Defendant emphasized the conditional nature of the Resolution in distinguishing Jabaiy." In the platter of TK-15-03459 the Plaintiff does also endeavor to persuade the court that Certificate of Occupancy 10-10 13 0 was Temporary. " This argument is not persuasive due to the current procedural posture of the case. To be sure, Plaintiffs dispute this finding, alleging in their Complaint that they began construction as required. The summary issuance of a stop work order without the opportunity to be heard, despite Plaintiffs' purported compliance with the conditions of the Resolution, is not objectively reasonable in light of Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent. This conclusion is supported by consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence outlining the protections of procedural due process." In the matter of TK-15-03459 Defendant has provided affidavit stating similarly to above, that the Defendant has always been in compliance with the conditions of the building permits issued and the Certificate of Occupancy issued. "Like in Jabarv, this unilateral revocation of an established property right is an unreasonable viola- tion of clearly established procedural due process protections to which qualified immunity does not apply. There can be no doubt that a reasonable public official would be aware of these protections and the necessity of notice and a hearing related to the deprivation of a property right.[LI For these reasons, Defendants Roussel and Donadieu may not claim the protection of qualified immunity"..... See Code Attorney blog comments on the model codes speaking to this topic as follows: Revoking a Certificate of Occupancy January 1 Oth,2011 legallindaLeave a commentGo to comments Revoking a certificate of occupancy can be an important means of obtaining compliance. A strip club in Maine had its certificate of occupancy revoked recently. The Portland Press Herald said that the revocation occurred because of an inadequate spruikler system and other yiol atio9s.';':. . .. . Prior to a certificate of occupancy being revoked,the owner/occupant is entitled to due process which means P. a heating with the opportunity to be heard and a chance to present witnesses. This process is usually used Page 119 of 270 Page 119 of 270 Exhibit 4 after other less dramatic attempts at gaining compliance have failed,or if the danger to the public is substan- tial. In the guide books I have written,the Building Official and inspector's Guide to Codes, Forms and Complaints,the Fire Code Inspector's Guide to Codes Forms and Complaints and the Residential inspector's Guide to Codes,Forms and Complaints, I have the necessary notices and appeal forms that fulfill the require- ments of the model codes. It is important to follow the required steps to protect the local jurisdiction from liability. Categories: Building Codes, Fire Prevention,Liability Per above, " I have the necessary notices and appeal forms that fulfill the requirements of the model codes.". Is the Plaintiff aware of exactly what part of the model codes requires that revocations comply with due pro- cess? .Has the Plaintiff failed to provide this exculpatory information in support of the motions now before the Court? ...."Plaintiffs have alleged that they were never afforded process of any type either before or after the SWO was issued. This is sufficient to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and to preclude dismissal of the personal capacity claims against Roussel and Donadieu at this early stage of the proceedings.... ...precisely what process was due.... either before or after the SWO was issued.Mathews v. El- dridge provides a three-factor balancing test for courts to consider in making such a determination: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of addi- tional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the func- tion involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."[51]"" In the matter of TK-15-03459, had the "procedural safeguard" of a predeprivation hearing as re- quired by Federal Law, the Montana Constitution and the MCA been observed in 2011 and or again in 2013, this matter would not now be before the Court. Foot notes from the PETROPLEX INTERNATIONAL,LLC v. ST. JAMES PARISH case quoted above as follows: 1371 Matthews v. Eldridge.424 U.S. 319,332(1976). Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth 408 U.S. 564 577(1972). 1�91 Bovvlh l f► City ofAberdeen, 681 F 3d 215 220(5th Cir. 2012)(internal citations omitted)(holding that an individ- ual had a constitutionally protected property interest in business operation pertnits).See also Jabaty v. City of Madison, Page 120 of 270 Page 120 of 270 Exhibit 4 547 Fed.Appx.600,609.(5th Cir.2013)(holding that an individual had a constitutionally protected property interest in a certificate of occupancy). f 40j Boivlby. 681 F.3d at 220. j41]See 3883 Connecticut LLC v. District of Columbia. 336 F.3d 1068, 1072(D.C.Cir.2003)(holding that a holder of a permit has a property right where official's discretion to terminate or suspend work already allowed by the permit is substantially limited). U Matthews, 424 U.S.at 333. f431 Louder•mill,470 U.S.at 542. j44j Atteberry v.Nocona Gen.Hosp., 430 F.3d 245,253(5th Cir.2005)(internal citations omitted). 145j Moiyan v. Sivcurson, 656 F,3d 359,382(5th Cir. 2011). j461 Matthews,424 U.S. at 333. j471 Wells Fargo Amtor•ed Sery. Corp. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comrn'n 547 F.2d 938,941 (5th Cir. 1977)(oiting Bell v. Burson. 402 U.S.535(1971)). — M 3883 Connecticut.LLC v. District of Columbia, 336 F.3d 1068, 1074(D.C.Cir.2003)(holding that SWU triggered procedural due process protections,as builder had property interest in conditional preliminary building pen-flits due to the limited conditions which would allow the District to terminate the permit); Tri-Corp Management Co. v. Pramik, 33 Fed. Appx. 742,747(6th Cir.2002)(noting that developer had property interest in previously issued zoning permit); Weinburgv. Whatcom Courro,. 241 F.3d 746,753(9th Cir.2001)(holding that a developer had a cognizable property interest in validly approved permits and short plats,and that their summary revocation triggered procedural due process protections.);Buckeye Community Hope Foundation v. City of•Cuyaho,ca Falls, 263 F.3d 627,642(6th Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiffs had property interest in permit based on approved site plan,triggering due process protections) (reversed on other grounds);Hearns Concrete Const. Co. v. 001 of Ypsilanti, 241 F.Supn. 2d 801_812(E.). .Mich. 2003 (holding that developer had property interest in validly approved pen-nits). 44991 547 Fed. Appx. 600,609(5th Cir. 2013). f 501 Indeed,the Court notes that the Parish was aware of Petroplex's potential constitutional claims when it passed the Resolution,citing their potential viability as one of the rational for allowing the development to continue. Doc. 14-7 (Resolution 14-84)("[T]he Parish Council concludes that this approval[of the tank farm] is justified as a matter of con- stitutional imperative or other vested legal right for the following reasons. . . .Whether the approval is'required as a matter of constitutional imperative or other vested legal right superior to this ordinance'is unclear. However,the finan- cial risk to the parish of a decision being wrong is high."). [5I]Meza v. Livi ig;fon, 607_F.3d 392,402(51h Cir.2010)(quoting Mathews, 424 U.S.at 338). Weinhurv. 13'halcorn County, 241 F.3d 746,753 (9tfi Cir.2001)(holding that a developer had a cognizable property interest in validly approved permits and short plats,and that their summary revocation triggered procedural due process protections.); See also Jabary v. City of Madison, 547 Fed.Appx.600,609(5th Cir.2013)(holding that an individual had a constitu- tionally protected property interest in a ccirtiflen beof occupancy). Page 121 of 270 Page 121 of 270 Exhibit 4 GORDON NICHOLSON, an individual; LORRAINE NICHOLSON, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, a public entity; JANICE McCLENDON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,Defendants. CV F 09-01941 AWI SMS. United States District Court,E.D. California. March 11, 2010. "In Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill,470 U.S. 532 f 1.985 ("Loudcrmill"), the Supreme Court held that: the Due Process Clause provides that certain substantive rights life, liberty and property can- not be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. The categories of sub- stance and procedure are distinct. [. . . .] While the legislature may elect not to confer a property in- terest in [public] employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an inter- est, once conferred,without appropriate procedural safeguards. Id. at 541.... Property interest was conferred to the Defendant up the issuances of Certificate of Occupancy no. 10-10130. The following bit speaks to the Plaintiff's argument that the availability of a post depravaiton appeal meets the requirements of the law. This argument is rejected as failing to comply with the law as follows: C. Adequacy of Procedural Due Process Next,Defendants contend that there was no procedural due process violation because Plaintiffs were afforded an adequate opportunity for notice and an opportunity to be heard. As the court previ- ously observed, Plaintiffs' claim for violation of procedural due process is based on the failure of Defendants to provide the opportunity to be heard;that is,to provide adequate notice of the Coun- ty's administrative procedures to address their concerns. Pertinent to this understanding of Plaintiffs' claim, Defendants contend: The [Notice] provided Plaintiffs with the required notice of the alleged violation of the County's zoning code. In the County's nuisance abatement process, the [Notice] serves not only as notice and opportunity to familiarize themselves [sic] with the requirement of the County Code,but also as an opportunity for discourse between staff and the property owner regarding the proper application of the ordinance code. Indeed, the [Notice] invited the Plaintiffs to engage both the Department of En- vironmental Resources and the Planning and Community Development Department. [. . . .] Plain- tiffs' Complaint is void of any attempt by the Plaintiffs to make contact with County staff subse- quent to the issuance of the [Notice], or prior to taking the acts they allege in the Complaint caused their damage. [. . . .] Page 122 of 270 Page 122 of 270 Exhibit 4 Doc. #6 at 18:12-19 (internal citations omitted). The court has carefully reviewed the Notice and finds that Defendants have overstated its fitness to serve as notice to Plaintiffs of their opportunity to be heard in opposition to the imposition of re- strictions under the zoning ordinance Doc. # 1-3 at 22. This court agrees with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals'opinion in Lane Hollow Coal Co. v. DOWCP, 137 F.3d 799 {4th Cir. 1998), which noted that"[n]o 'process,'however thorough, can provide what is 'due' without notice to those who stand to lose out thereby." Id. at 807. The notice that is required is the notice of an opportunity to challenge the agency action in a meaningful way. Even if the court were to interpret the Notice as an "opportunity [for Plaintiffs] to familiarize them- selves with the requirement of the County Code, [and] also as an opportunity for discourse between staff and the property owner regarding the proper application of the ordinance code" as Defendants contend, such "opportunity for discourse"would be insufficient for due process purposes. Pursu- ant to Laudermill, "[a]n essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of live, liberty, or property 'be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Laudermill, 470 U.S. at 542. Where, as here, the property interest at stake is substantial, the princi- ple requires at minimum "'some kind of hearing"' prior to the deprivation. id. The court interprets the term "hearing" in this context to mean an adversarial or quasi-adversarial proceeding wherein the aggrieved party has an opportunity to substantively challenge the proposed agency action. Even if the Notice did transmit a invitation to become familiar with the county code or an opportunity for discourse—a contention that the court does not concede at this point—such an "invitation" is in- sufficient to communicate the availability of the hearing process that County allegedly provides." In the matter of TK-15-03459, the Plaintiff,by and thru City Attorneys Tim Cooper and Kyla Mur- ray, does not go so far as to allege that the Defendant was invited to a hearing, as is determined by a 9th Circuit district court above,to insufficient in fulfilling the requirements ofpredeprivation hear- ing,per above.;rather the Plaintiff is in the record as stating that an appeal process was available, preposterously endeavoring to mislead the Court in that the mere availability of post deprivation ap- peal process is sufficient to fulfill the Federal and State Constitutional requirements of a predepriva- tion hearing. In response to the current ripe motion to dismiss, per the doctrine of unclean hands,now before the Court in the matter of TK-15-03459, the Plaintiff endeavors to persuade the Court that the equitable Page 123 of 270 Page 123 or 270 Exhibit 4 principle of unclean hands is not applicable to a government enforcement action. There is some ex- isting case law that supports the position of the Plaintiff that the equitable doctrine of unclean hands may not be used in defense of a government in an enforcement action,the incorrect assumption that the government is immune from the defense of unclean hands and the exacting elements required to lawfully defend against a government enforcement action via the equitable defense of unclean hands is detailed in the following case quotes which specify the required elements for this defense based on current case law of the Supreme Court: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DINITSION SECURITIES AND EXCI IANGE § COMMISSION, § Ylniofifl; § §Civil Action No.3:08-CV-2050-D VS. § § MARK.CUBAN, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION —_ AND ORDER The principal questions presented by plaintiff's motion to strike are whether the affirmative defense of unclean hands is available as a matter of law when the Securities and Exchange Coininissiou("SEC")brings an enforcement action and,if it is,whether defendant Marls Cuban("Cuban")has adequately pleaded unclean hands. The court concludes that this aftirinative defense is not barred its a matter of law, But to the extent it is available,it is only in strictly limited circumstances when the SEC's misconduct is egregious, the misconduct occurs before the SEC tiles the enforcement action,and the misconduct results in prejudice to the defense of the en forcement action that rises to a constitutional level and is established through a direct nelus between the wisconduct and the constitutional injury. Page 124 of 270 Page 124 of 270 Exhibit 4 The SEC initially contends in its opening brief that equitable defenses are generally unavailable against the government when it acts in the public interest. Later in the brief,and in its reply brief, the SEC.refines this contention to take the unqualified position that such a defense is unavailable as a matter of law in an SEC enforcement action. the SEC begins its opening brief by relying heavily on SEC v. Hayes, 1991 WL 236846 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 1991) (Maloney,J.),which it characterizes as "the law in this District." P. Br. 3-4 ("[T]he law in this District is that unclean hands `may not be invoked against a governmental agency which is attempting to enforce a congressional mandate in the public interest[.]"' (quoting Hayes, 1991 WL 236846, at *2));° ,see also P. 'The SEC also cites United States v. American Electric Power Service Corp., 218 F.Supp.2d 931 (S.D. Ohio 2002). In American .Electric Power the United States, various states, and certain citizen groups sued power plant operators for relief under the Clean Air Act. Id at 935. One of many asserted affi-mative defenses was unclean hands. The plaintiffs contended that the defense was unavailable against an alleged violation of the Clean Air Act and that it could not be asserted against private citizens whom Congress had authorized to file suit. Id. at 938. The basis for the unclean hands defense is not clearly set out in the court's opinion. But the court did hold that the defense could not be used against the United States to prevent it from enforcing its laws to protect the public interest. Id. In doing so, it cited Pan--American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 456 (1927). In Pon-American the Court stated that "[t]he general principles of equity are applicable in a suit by the United States to secure the cancellation of a conveyance or the rescission of a contract. But they will not be applied to frustrate the purpose of its laws or to thwart public policy." Pan Am., 273 U.S. at 506 (citations omitted). But this statement mustbe understood through the lens ofHeckler v. CommunityHealth Services,Inc.,467 U.S. 51 (1984),discussed below. In heckler that Court declined to expand the principle that the Government may not be estopped on the same terms as any other litigant"into a flat rule that estoppel may not in any circumstances run against the Government." Id. at 61. And it did not reject completely the premise that"the public interest in ensuring that the Government can enforce the law free from estoppel might be outweighed by the countervailing interest of citizens in some minim-um standard of decency,honor,and reliability in their dealings with their Government." Id. at 60. Page 125 of 270 Page 125 of 270 Exhibit: 4 Second National Bank, 502 F.2d at 547-48. "the United States is no more immune to the general principles of equity than any other litigant." Id, at 548, It stated that these principles will not be applied to frustrate the purpose of United States's laws or to thwart public policy, but, in general, "there is no authority by which equity can come to the aid of an illegal and fraudulent scheme,regardless of the beneficence of the ultimate purpose." Id. (quoting In re.Mitt, Leasing Corp.,449 F.2d 811, 815 (5th Cir. 1971)), "On the other hand, `unless the Government did something which in good conscience it should not have done, or failed to do something fair dealing required it to do, it conies into court with clean hands and is entitled to the equitable relief it obtained."' Id. (quoting Deseret Apartments v. United States, 250 F.2d 457, 458 (1 Oth Cir. 1957)). Therefore,Second National Banlc does not support the conclusion that the detiense ofunclean hands can novel- be asserted against the government, including against the SEC in an enforcement action! 'For similar reasons, the court declines to follow United States v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 275 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D. Tex. 2002)(Fish,C.J.). Page 126 of 270 Page 126 of 270 Exhibit 4 In addition to Hayes, the SEC also relies on the Supreme Court's conclusion in Heckler v. Community Health Services,Inc., 467 U.S. 51 (1984),that"`it is well settled that the Government may not be estopped on the same terms as any other litigant' because such would undennine `the interest of the citizenry as a whole in obedience to the rule of law.'"' P.Br.3(quoting Heckler,467 U.S.at 60). The Heckler Court declined,however,to"expand this principle into a flat rule that estoppel may not in any circumstances run against the Government." Heckler,467 U.S.at 60. It held that the claimant could not prevail for failure to demonstrate the traditional elements of estoppel. Id. at 61. But it did not reject completely the premise that"the public interest in ensuring that the Government can enforce the law tree from estoppel might be outweighed by the countervailing interest of citizens in sonic minimum standard of decency, honor, and reliability in their dealings with their Government." Id. at 60-61, In other words,Heckler does not support the conclusion that an affirmative defense like unclean hands can never be asserted against a government agency bringing an enforcement or similar action. To the contrary, it supports this court's conclusion today that, as the law presently stands, the defense is not barred as a matter of law, although, to the extent it is recognized, it is only available in strictly limited circumstances when the party asserting the defense satisfies an exacting standard. Page 127 of 270 Page 127 of 270 Exhibit: 4 As the Court explained in Heckler, the public interest in the rule of law is undermined when the conduct of public agents prevents the government from enforcing the law. Heckler, 467 U.S. at 60. And courts have recognized that the costs associated with Iitigating affirmative defenses in tandem with the enforcement action are sufficient to make the defenses unavailable as a matter of law, or to allow them only in narrow circumstances. See, e.g., KPMG, 2003 WL 21976733 Therefore, to the extent an affirmative defense such as unclean hands is available, it is only in strictly limited circumstances where the agency's misconduct is egregious,and the misconduct results in prejudice to the defense of the enforcement action that rises to a constitutional level and is established through a direct nexus between the misconduct and the constitutional injury. unclean hands defense See, e.g., Elecs, Warehouse, 689 F. Supp. at 72("[CJourts have permitted the defense only where the alleged misconduct. . . prejudiced the defendant in his defense of the action."(citations omitted); holding that the defense applies "only where there is a direct nexus between the misconduct and the right which is the basis of the suit." Id. at 73 (collecting cases)). Fn the matter of TK-15-03459, there is a direct nexus between the illegal revocation of Certificate of Occupancy no. 10-10 130 and the basis of the Plaintiffs complaint that the Defendant has occupied property without a Certificate of Occupancy. The misconduct of the Plaintiff in illegally revoking the Defendant's C of O has prejudiced against the Defendant in his ability defend against the Plain- tiffs complaint regarding the alleged fact that Defendant, "occupied Property without a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Bozeman Building Department" Page 128 of 270 Page 128 of 2/0 Exhibit 4 The court of appeal in Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 978-79, summarized the doctrine of"Unclean Hands" as follows: The defense of unclean hands arises from the maxim, "He who comes into Equity must come with clean hands."The doctrine demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matterfor which he seeks a rem- edy. He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief,re- gardless of the merits of his claim. The defense is available in legal as well as equitable actions. Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact. The unclean hands doctrine protects judicial integrity and promotes justice. It protects judicial in- tegrity because allowing a plaintiff with unclean hands to recover in an action creates doubts as to the justice provided by the judicial system. Thus,precluding recovery to the unclean plaintiff pro- tects the court's, rather than the opposing party's, interests. The doctrine promotes justice by making a plaintiff answer for his own misconduct in the action. it prevents"a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression. Another way that the Defendant may deploy the unclean hands defense against the Plaintiff in the matter of TK-15-03459 is outline as follows: " "Unclean Hands" . . . . By Masino,Anthony; Burkette, Gary Article excerpt: Unclean Hands What the "Exclusionary Rule" is to criminal court proceedings, "Unclean Hands" is to civil court proceedings. ... The Exclusionary Rule The "Exclusionary Rule" is a controversial bedrock principle to the U.S.'s criminal legal system that simply states a party may not utilize information in a criminal court proceeding that was obtained illegally.... This highly sensitive tactic is in place to protect the general public and maintain the integrity of the constitution in criminal proceedings. " In the matter of TK-15-03459, the Defendant has provide the court with pictures of Certificate of Occupancy no. 10-10130, demonstrating the occupation at 2988 Blackbird Drive began in Septem- ber of 2010, under the lawfully conferred Certificate of Occupancy no. 10-10130. Page 129 of 270 Page 129 of 270 Exhibit 4 Plaintiffs exhibit 1 is the only evidence provided by the Plaintiff(not conclusory in nature) which demonstrates that the City of Bozeman has revoked Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130. It has been previously demonstrated that, "Courts nationfvide have repeatedly held"the method which the City used to revoke Certificate of Occupancy no. 10-10130 is constitutionally illegal. Furthermore, the revocation of.0 of O no. 10-10130 was in violation of the Montana Constittttiott and Montana's rule of law in the MCA. The "Exclusionary Rule" prohibits the Plaintiff from introducing illegally obtained evidence. In par- ticularly, evidence provided to the Court which was created in violation of the constitutional rights of the Defendant. The Plaintiff revoking Defendant's C of O in violation of what," Courts nation- wide have repeatedly held" and the " law of the circuit", this is the law of our circuit, the 9th results in a document created thru violation of the Defendant's Constitution Rights. Wherefore the reasons stated above, the Defendant again moves this Honorable Court to dis- miss TK-15-03459, with Prejudice,per the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. DATED this 15th day of August 2016. COPY FILED BY: Peter Thompson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was hand delivered, this 15th day of August 2016, to the City Attorney, BY Page 130 of 270 Page 130 of 270 Exhibit 5 PL.'rER THOMPSON 2988 Blackbird Drive Bozeman, 11Tontana 59718 406-570-0268 thonzpson0089 o insn.coin IN TIME MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN COUNTY OF GALLATIN, STATE OF MONTANA Case No. TK 15-03459 CITY OF BOZEMAN, DEFENDANT'S Plaintiff, REPLY TO CITY'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S V. MOTION TO DISMISS PETER THOMPSON, FOR LACK OF A SPEEDY TRIAL Defendant. COMES Now Defendant Peter Thompson before the Court. The Defendant reserves the right to supplement this brief by additional memorandum before, after or at any hearing. Proposed Order Attached. Sumni The City of Bozeman unlawfully assumed the name of the State in Kyla Murf ay's response to the Defendant's motion,technically this filing of the City should be disregarded, but for the salve of judicial economy, Peter Thompson responds to the City's reply herewith. In the second sentence Mrs. Murray falsely represents to the court that "Defendant does not allege Constitutional Speedy Trial Violation or provide any law or analysis.". In fact Peter Thompson argued as follows, "Defendant Peter Thompson argues that the foregoing Page 131 of 270 Page 131 of 270 Exhibit 5 provides grounds for dismissal with prejudice on both constitutional and statutory grounds." And Thompson provided stare decisis which plainly stated that in misdemeanor cases, the speedy trial issue is governed by statute, as follows, " State v. Belgarde, 798 P.2d 539, 244 Mont. 500 (1990); "Speedy trial analysis for misdemeanor prosecutions is governed by statute"" The City endeavors to mislead this court to conclude that constitutional speedy trial analysis of felonies may be applied to misdemeanor charges in municipal court. In State v. Hayes, Justice Gray disallowed the application of the four part speedy trial test applied in felony matters to the misdemeanor appeal of Hayes, because speedy trial in misdemeanor matters is governed by statute, albeit a statute that is a simplified and more stringent reflection of the more complex constitutional right to a speedy trial issue. State v. Ronningen is the bedrock case which more recent cases ultimately refer to in analyzing the people's right to a speedy trial in misdemeanor matters. State i� Hayes, 953 P.2d 700, 1998 M.T. 14, 287 Mont. 210 (1998); "1[ 8 Under § 46-13-401(2), MCA, a misdemeanor charge ordinarily must be dismissed if "not brought to trial within 6 months" after the entry of a plea. We previously have held that the statutory 6-month period begins to run on the day following the event which triggers the dinning of the time limitation and expires 6 months later. See State a Belgarde (1990), 244 Mont. 500 507 798 P.2d 539 544 (citing State a Ronningen (1984), 213 Mont. 358, 691 P.2d 1348). ... T 12 ....The remainder of the speedy trial cases advanced by Hayes involved speedy trial issues in the district courts... we analyze those cases under the 4-part speedy trial test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 51_4, 523, 92 S.Ct. 2182 2188 33 L.Ed.2d 101 112-13 not the 6-month statutory period. See, e.g., State v. Bartnes (1988), 234 Mont. 522 527 764 P.2d 1271 1274.". Emphasis added. In State vs. Ronningen the Montana Supreme Court made clear that the people's right z Page 132 of 270 Page 132 of 270 Exhibit 5 to a speedy trial in misdemeanor matters does not rise to the level of requiring felony 4 part constitutional consideration because of the available more stringent and efficient application of the statutory analysis method. Mrs. Murray's reply spent most of the second page listing the pretrial motion work of the Defendant, she "would have this Court impose a speedy trial constitutional analysis in determining whether- "good cause" was met based on the six- month statutory deadline" State v Ronningen, 691 P.2d 1348, 213 Mont. 358 (1984): "The State would have this Court impose a speedy trial constitutional analysis in determining whether "good cause" was met based on the six-month statutory deadline. The speedy trial tests, however, apply only in the case of felonies, and we would be inclined to apply them to misdemeanors only if a statute did not exist that was even more restrictive than the speedy trial tests. Here the statutory deadline set forth in section 46-13-201(2), is more strict than any constitutional analysis would be required to be and we simply use the statute as containing the sole standard of whether "good cause" for the delay has been shown. 3 The State also argues that defendant must be held responsible for the delay because defense counsel, in signing off the check list at the omnibus hearing, did not indicate that a problem of speedy trial loomed on the horizon. But the statute is clear and the facts are clear. If the defendant requests the postponement the six-month trial deadline does not apply. But if this is not so, then the State must prove the existence of good cause for the delay.". Emphasis Added. The maxim that "It concerns the commonwealth that there be an end of law suits" is evident in the text of§ 46-13-201. That the opening text of the statute does not in fact authorize a Defendant to motion for dismissal of a misdemeanor complaint for lack of a speedy trial, underscores the automatic nature with which the drafters of the statute intended the court and our architects of justice to honor their obligations to end misdemeanor complaints with efficiency. 46-13-201 has been renumbered to §46-13-401, the text as follows: 3 Page 133 of 270 Page 133 of 270 Exhibit 5 46-13-401. Dismissal at instance of court or prosecution. (1) The court may, either on its own motion or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney and in furtherance of justice, order a complaint, information, or indictment to be dismissed. .... (2) After the entry of a plea upon a misdemeanor charge, the court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the prosecution to be dismissed,with prejudice, if a de- fendant whose trial has not been postponed upon the defendant's motion is not brought to trial within 6 months. In response (11/16/2018) to Defendant Peter Thompson's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial (11/9/2018), the City asks this honorable court to ignore natural justice and its application to the conventional tenants of the space time continuum. The City endeavors to mislead this honorable court to deny mandatory statutory relief for lack of a speedy trial in 6 months (182 days) even though oral motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial was first denied (April 25, 2016) 235 days after pleading not guilty (September 3, 2015). The City also endeavors to mislead the court to disregard the fact that during and after this 235 days of pretrial activity, Defendant Thompson has never made any motion for the postponement of the trial. On November 25, 2015, Thompson made oral argument to expedite the process of compelling the City to produce discovery and the Court directed that motion be submitted in writing. At the Calendar Call hearing of April 25, 2016, 235 days after Defendant pled not guilty, upon motion of City Attorney Kyla Murray the court ordered Defendant Thompson to retain the services of the public defender's office. On this same day as a proximate result of Mrs. Murray's unexpected motion, the Court then of its own volition vacated the Jury Trial scheduled for May 3, 2016. Following the Courts vacating the scheduled trial (late, at the tail end of this April 25, 2016 Calendar Call hearing, in the spirit of judicial economy, 4 Page 134 of 270 Page 134 of 270 Exhibit 5 Defendant Thompson motioned for dismissal for lack of a speedy trial. The Court denied Thompson's oral motion at the close of the Calendar Call hearing; and then on May 2, 2016 the court issued an order scheduling a hearing on motion for May 6, 2016. At hearing on May 6, 2016 wherein neither the public defender nor the City's attorney Mrs. Murray had any idea what the hearing was about, Peter Thompson advised the Court that he had recently motioned to dismiss for lack of a speedy trail and that he understood the hearing of this day to be for the purpose of presenting oral argument of the two open affirmative defense motions, the court concurred with Thompson's understanding of the purpose of the hearing. The public defender then made an unopposed oral motion to continue the hearing. Mrs. Murray, now in the year 2019, frivolously arguing that a public defenders motion to postpone hearings 272 days or more after the entry of plea provides the court with a clear view of the kind architecture for Justice which the City invites this honorable court to participate in. He who does not forbid a crime while he may, sanctions it. The City's argument is contrary to the dictates of natural justice which requires the City to act fairly and the City's argument is contrary to modern rule of law which further requires the City Attorney's office to be the "architect of Justice" above all else. By requiring the prosecutor to assist the defense in making its case, the Brady rule represents a limited departure from a pure adversary model. The Court has recognized, however, that the prosecutor's role transcends that of an adversary; he "is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty . . . whose interest . . . in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88 (1935). See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S., at 87-88. The City endeavors to bolster their ex post facto style application of MCA.§46-13- 401(2) exceptions by further arguing that the City had good cause for the delay because s Page 135 of 270 Page 135 of 270 Exhibit 5 Thompson made motions for dismissal based on this honorable courts' approved affirmative defenses. If the court were to go down the rabbit hole of the City's proposed logic that motions for dismissal based oil approved affirmative defenses which cause a need for pretrial hearings represent sufficient grounds to open the good cause exception of MCA §46-13-401(2), then the Court may as well make all those who claim affirmative defenses sign a right to speedy trial waiver so as the waiving of this constitutionally founded statutory right is knowingly made in a lawful manner. Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 54 P.3d 1, 2002 M.T. 129, 3.10 Mont. 123 (2002): 64 ... my point is that where fundamental constitutional rights are involved.—the law is eminently clear that the waiver of such rights will not be lightly presumed. State v. Okland (1997), 283 Mont. 10, 15, 941 P.2d 431, 434 (presuming waiver of counsel from a silent record is impermissible); State v. Lucero (1968), 151 Mont. 531, 538, 445 P.2d 731, 735 (stating courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of constitutional rights). A waiver of a fundamental right must be proved to have been made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently—typically by the party seeking the waiver. Bird, IT 35-36; Tapson, 1 25; Lucero, 151 Mont. at 538, 445 P.2d at 735. For a fundamental right to be effectively waived, the individual must be informed of the consequences before personally consenting to the waiver. Dahlin,¶ 22; State v.Allison (1944), 116 Mont. 352, 360, 153 P.2d 141, 145. And, the waiver will be narrowly construed. State v. Tiedemann (1978), 1.78 Mont. 394, 4021 584 P.2d 1284, 1289 Shearson/American Express, Inc., v. McMahon (1987), 482 U.S. 220, 226, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2337, 96 L.Ed.2d 185). Conclusion In the closing minutes of the April 25, 2106 hearing, after the Court announced its intention to vacate the first scheduled trial date of May 31 2016 (243 days after pleading not guilty) Defendant Peter Thompson advised the Court that scheduling hearings for open motions would be a waste of the Court's time because it would be more efficient to dismiss 6 Page 136 of 270 Page 136 of 270 Exhibit 5 the matter for lack of a speedy trial (182 days) and then Thompson made oral motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. State a Tweedy, 922 P.2d 1134, 277 Mont. 313 (1996), cited in State v. Betterman, 2015, as it we held that"[w] hen a trial court, for its own reasons, vacates the trial date and does not set a new date, this delay is not attributable to the defendant."" It follows that whereas on April 25, 2016,the Court vacated the only scheduled trial date of May 3, 2016 that (pursuant to the stare decisis above) the intervening (1,016) days between April 25, 2016 and February 5, 2019 must be attributed as days of intentional delay by the City. Thus the City is precluded from evidencing good cause for the continuing delay in scheduling a trial date in this matter. State v Tweedy, 922 P.2d 1134, 277 Mont. 313 (1996), cited in State v. Lewis, 2007, as " we must conclude from the record before us that the delay here is... intentional delay by reason of the State's failure to diligently prosecute" State v T veedy, 922 P.2d 1134, 277 Mont. 313 (1996), cited in State v. Good 2002, as "IT] he [State] bears the burden of prosecution, and a defendant is under no obligation to ensure diligent prosecution of the case against him or to help the [State] avoid dismissal for failure to timely prosecute him."" State v. Ronningen below is directly on point because in that case, like in ours, the record causes the (state) City to concede that prior to Thompson making oral motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial,the trial had not been postponed upon the application of Thompson; and that the record in our case is just as clear that the City(state) did not move the Court to set a trial date within the statutorily required 6 month period; and the City's argument that affirmative defenses that result in hearings does not rise to the level of "other factors that may bear on delay attributable to the State" which the Montana Supreme Court r rejected in State v Ronningen infra. Page 137 of 270 Page 137 of 270 Exhibit 5 State a Ronningen, 691 P.2d 1348, 213 Mont. 358 (1984): " The State of Montana appeals from an order of the Yellowstone County District Court dismissing a misdemeanor charge filed against the defendant, Ronald Lee Ronningen, because of the State's failure to bring the matter to trial within the statutorily mandated six- month period for all misdemeanors. The trial court ruled that the sole question under the statute is whether the State demonstrated "good cause" for the delay, and that the State did not do so. We affinn. The State argues first that the trial court erred because it did not consider, in addition to the "good cause" requirement of the statute, other factors that may bear on delay attributable to the State. Second, the State argues that it did establish "good cause" for the delay beyond the six-month deadline of the statute. The statute applies only to misdemeanors. Section 46-13- 201(2), MCA,provides: "The court, unless good cause to the contrwy is shown, must order the prosecution to be dismissed if a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon his application is not brought to trial within 6 months after entry of plea upon a complaint, information, or indictment charging a misdemeanor." This statute mandates dismissal of a misdemeanor charge if not brought to trial within six months if defendant has not asked for the postponement and if the State has not shown good cause for the delay. The State effectively concedes and the record shows that defendant did not ask for a postponement. The record is just as clear that the State had several chances to have the trial set within the statutory deadline but failed to do so." (Emphasis added.) Per the foregoing, Defendant Peter Thompson herewith moves this honorable Court to issue an order adjudicating as follows: 1. Defendant Peter Thompson's Motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and 2. TK 15-03459 dismissed with PREJUDICE pursuant to § 46-13-201(2), MCA. DATED 5th day of February 2019. BY: Copy Filed Peter Thompson S Page 138 of 270 Page 138 of 270 Exhibit 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was hand delivered to City Attorney Kyla Murray, this 5th day of February, 2019, to the City Attorney's of- face at 121 North Rouse in Bozeman, Montana. B.Y. Copy Filed Peter Thompson 9 Page 139 of 270 Page 139 of 270 Exhibit b It tyuched a raw nerve. When Stephen Mat low, editor of the Livingston Enterprise newspaper, wrote an editorial recently calling high and mighty Bozeman, Montana "butt ugly", a town rapidly losing its community soul, many citizens residing in Matlow's intended target reacted with the outrage of defensiveness. Current Bozeman City Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff, a former mayor and home-grown community leader who was once a school teacher in urban Chicago but in the 1990s with his physician wife decided to return to his native town to raise their family,took Matlow's semi-satirical observations to heart.And Kirchhoff's own assessment may surprise you. Like former Missoula Mayor ban Kemmis [now director of the O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West], Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and others, Kirchhoff believes that what defines the modern West is not just the innovative approaches being employed to make money or selling real estate—an improvement over the boom and bust days of frontier gold rushes—but its capacity to see community as something more than economic, social and religious homogeneity. For Kirchhoff, it's the stuff that doesn't appear on ledger books that matters just as much as what's visible in statistics to bean counters. —Todd Wilkinson By Steve Kirchhoff Straight from the core of good-natured, in-your-face truth-telling, an editor of the Livingston Enterprise recently lobbed a semi-serious rhetorical grenade at Bozeman—the town where I was raised—calling the city butt ugly. He claimed Bozeman lacks community spirit, and suggested that it change its name to Livingston West, since it has become little more than a faceless CEburb to Livingston,the real town. A friend called and suggested I write a piece for New West in response, perhaps even one-upping the ironic spin right back at Livingston. No stranger to sarcasm, I accepted the idea, but in my mind it suddenly took a more serious turn, Let me say I love Bozeman and wouldn't choose to live anywhere else. Bozeman is home to great people—intelligent, hard-working, community-minded, diverse, and loving people. I've been moved to see thousands of Bozeman citizens march together for peace in demonstrations against Bush's insane war; I've witnessed the spirit of love gather in scores of friends and neighbors who aided the family of a 47-year-old neighbor and mother of two, who died after a protracted battle with brain cancer. She died in the middle of the night in the presence of a genuine friend who sat up with her like so many others had for months prior to her death. And I saw Bozeman band together to push off a white supremacist who had immigrated to Bozeman to encourage his brand of perverted hate, Yes, Bozeman today is a community—but, like all places, it is not perfect and it has some glaring weaknesses—particularly its affection for money and its fear of the down-and-out side of life. In the end, it strikes me that the Enterprise editor might, after all, be at least half-right. Page 140 of 270 Page 140 of 270 Exhibit 6 First, I'd like to answer the charges made by the editor one by one, and then explain with some historic reference why I think the Enterprise is onto something. The first charge,that Bozeman is butt-ugly, is obviously true, butt he same can be said not only about Livingston but also about 90 percent of America's built environment since 1920. Most of modern America is butt ugly, period. The second charge,that Bozeman lacks community spirit, hits closer to the bull's-eye, if by community spirit is meant commitment to social justice and a compassionate regard for less fortunate huma n beings. Or better yet, if what is meant is heart. And as to the third charge, or rather,suggestion for a name change, I cede the point entirely. I've had too many conversations lately with people making the move over the hill, and not just for lower cost housing in Livingston, but out of longing for a stronger sense of community. They're sick of Bozeman's growling greediness—of its life-threatening automobile traffic that menaces downtown pedestrians, and its soul-killing built environment on North 19th. I've heard and read the new expression tossed around: Bozangeles. The question of Bozeman's heart has been on my mind for a long time, at least since 1997,when a partner and I started a short-lived alternative newspaper devoted to saying things that the Bozeman Daily Chronicle wouldn't say—such as, what is really going on in our community. One day in the late 90s,while researching the life of Walter Cooper, a Bozeman founder, I came across an apparently unrelated article published in the Bozeman Chronicle in the wake of the stock market panic of 1907,the blunt honesty of which continues to impress me.The article, entitled "AGAINST TRAMPS," described the creation of the Association of Charities of Bozeman, a four-member group including two reverends that was meant to immunize citizens from the plague of "beggars,tramps, and bums," described in the article as"parasites of the human race." During the 1907 panic, a surge in unemployment sent jobless men called tramps zig-zagging the country in railcars, begging and doing odd jobs when they could find them.Apparently some tramps had found their way to Bozeman, bothering several defenseless "ladies of the house" with unwanted offers to chop wood or move heavy objects in exchange for food and lodging. Faced with the menace of shiftless men, the Chronicle took on the issue with a vengeance. The charity association's inception was announced on the front page,where it was proudly described as "a wall of protection against being victimized" by the indigent.The association's solution to the presence of tramps was this: For a fee, residents could purchase a paper stub with an address printed on it, which they would hand off to the unwelcome tramp knocking at the gate.The tramp could then redeem the stub by visiting the designated house,where he might perform odd jobs in exchange for food and a maximum of one night's lodgings. Welcome to charity, old-Bozeman style. In the 100 years since, how much have things really changed? Walter Cooper's activities only appear to be different from those of the Association of Charities; in fact, his career coincides with the rise of Bozeman's first charity organization, and shares with it certain particularities of ideology. His business victories symbolize what Bozeman, like the rest of America, says it loves; the losers,those parasitic tramps, symbolize what Bozeman and America fear and hate. Page 141 of 270 Page 141 of 270 Exhibit 6 By appearances, Cooper was no parasite. He was the opposite: energetic, intelligent,virile, and successful in a variety of business ventures, among them real estate,timber, energy, and sporting goods.At his Armory and Gun Manufacturing Company, located in the first brick building to be constructed in downtown Bozeman, gunsmiths built the famous 50-caliber rifle that played a role in helping to decimate the northern buffalo herd, and with it, Indians who depended on buffalo to satisfy many basic needs. A colorful story retailed by Cooper's daughter depicts her father in 1907 instructing more than a dozen sheriff's deputies to ride their horses though a band of disorderly, striking loggers under his employ near the 320 Ranch in Gallatin Canyon. "My father said to the sheriff, which was so typical of him, 'Drive right over them.' They whipped up the horses and drove right through their camp and over their beds and on up the canyon." It's the courageous Bozeman entrepreneur scattering parasites. Cooper's aggressiveness is perfectly bland and acceptable, even laudable,yet his business is nourished by rowdy, inexpensive laborers who, according to his daughter, hadn't been paid for weeks prior to the strike. Meanwhile, a tramp knocking at the gates of a Bozeman housewife is scandalous and not to be tolerated. Justice and right belong to the successful; criminality and stigma are all that cling to the rag- tag man shorn of his employment. Bozeman has struggled to free its mind and heart from the supposed grandeur of material success.And, to this day, our city's heart has yet to fully warm to the task of providing basic services to those who can't afford them, including mental health care, dental care, a soup kitchen, and homeless shelter.There are, of course, scores of individuals and organizations in Bozeman that answer the call to help the needy—but the fact is, Bozeman is the only city of its size in the state of Montana that lacks a homeless shelter. Paul Thomas is an exception to that rule, and a hopeful sign that Bozeman might come around sooner rather than later to providing better services to the needy. For the past six and one-half years Paul and his wife have operated an entrepreneurial effort called His Soup, a mobile ministry that provides inspiration, hot food, and other essentials to the needy. Paul runs His Soup from a late-model van emblazoned with the words JESUS SAVES in the sign of a cross on the sliding door panel. In the mornings he parks the van on East Main Street near Lindley Park, and in the afternoons across from the Oak Street entrance to Wal-Mart, where he speaks with and provides hot coffee, hot food, and everyday necessities to whoever shows up—on winter days,they number as few as ten, but on summer days, nearly a hundred. Paul prepares food in the Food Bank's kitchen. I spoke with him for about twenty minutes today;the sub-zero wind was freezing my face and feet, but Paul seemed okay under his huge coat and overalls. He was scampering in and out of the heavily stocked van, grabbing clothes from stacked-up plastic totes to hand out to the men who came singly to see him. Across the street, cars kept streaming in and out of the entrance to Bozeman's largest retail business, the 202,000 square foot Super Wal-Mart. Page 142 of 270 Page 142 of 270 Exhibit 6 In twenty minutes Paul served three men coffee and gave them warm clothes—arid to one man who just shaved his head to get rid of lice once for all, he gave a sleeping bag. He engaged each in good-natured conversation.And two vans pulled up at intervals.A man hopped out of the first one and handed Pau I a twenty dollar bill; a teenaged-boy stepped timidly from the second and stretched out his hand in a gesture of offering. It held a white plastic grocery bag with clothes inside. Paul thanked them both with "God bless you." Paul Thomas is a spiritual entrepreneur. He takes the business of his ministry seriously, but not himself. He told me he is doing the work that God intends—and he told me two more things about Bozeman: First, he said the city isn't ready for a homeless shelter because it seems to think a shelter is about "putting people" somewhere. And second, he said Bozeman's heart isn't yet right for a shelter. But he wasn't upset or condescending when he said it. He has faith that a shelter will happen when God wills. Paul Thomas and Walter Cooper are both Bozemanites.They both were born somewhere else and moved here and tried to make good things happen. Cooper's legacy lives on in a genteel southside park with mature elm trees shading ultimate frisbee games that are a constant feature on summer evenings. Paul Thomas is unlikely to leave behind such a monument to his work. Bozeman could use more invisible monuments;they,too, are the stuff of community. I have no clue about the direction this city will take in the future—if the rugged and profitable legacy of Cooper-style individualism will predominate, or if we will combine a more genuine interest in the common life with our already robust efforts in the realm of business. Paul Thomas said he shoos away college students who come downtown to photograph the people he serves. He tells the students to go back to their dorm rooms and take a picture of themselves, "because there's no difference." That's a lesson all of Bozeman will learn,or it will remain the target of adroit sarcasm from our neighbors east of the hill Page 143 of 270 Page 143 of 270 Exhibit:7 ftvm THOMPSON 298.8 Blackbird.Drivf3 Bozeman,Montana,5971$ 406-570-0268 thompson0089@msn com Pro Se with Limited Scope Itepesentaivn IN THE 1"CIPAL COURT.CAP:`M E CITY OF I3OZEMAN COUNTS'OF GALLATIN, STATE OF MONTANA EOZEMAN MT Case.No. CR:20:I4-00070 STATE OF MONTANA. :...: :: :::: CITY OF B.OZEMANY. .:. . DEFLNII►ANT'S ;:.:.. OUON AND BRIEF Platiff� TO DISMISS FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT WITH PR+DPOSED ORDER PETER THOMPS.ON, DEFEND Si.140TXOKAM.1 ,SUPPPRUNO BRIEF TO DSNIISS FOUR FTt1iJU:UPOI'�LTHE:.C+LUR'T; COMES Now Defendant Peter lboinpsti i,pm se,witty Imn.ed scope representation before the Court.The Defendant reserves,tbe;.n to supplement this brief by additional memorandum at a later date pending further discovery and or before or after or at any hearing, Defendant hereby moves they court.as.fo114ws:per the Facts.,.Discussion end following Law..an:. Arguments:: :.. MCI :.. 1. Statements within.the co m.phdat:are.not supported by material facts. ... .... ... . Page 144 of 270 Page 144 of 270. .... . ....................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................. MOM &y stags n th uo nptauit us f©Mows;:. .+ .-O.ii Jt1licy xC1� t11.:1 `1'i:z ' 1c C3i 1i; 1'ir `: N. siiii:7:lz r ll�c:. x411 ill .Di iti7E,3�� ..4 . �beetb.. i# hfi Jh rt . y J�� . criti si rs end ties 233.1 i i'` .�1`'I'�lic �i. ii4`it ti ') �iri �t r ._ .1 1 �rm.tr��et�'..6cp 611s�.�3e��vtIstat�� . lcc�.itlic � . . '. #.t:. .,.� ,....l. c.cu� N":. E.. ,� 41t it �t4��]�ti; .� �1t1+L'� 11411#�4 •,his C,t3�i1 Litli�:(?���4R1:L� C� � .. . 3 i 1.�.? '6�1 . :�4i�1:1�1 t}T tl}5r.4�t �tr� sulc,:4;i3iaill�K 4Mi Paula rodac az�,l er coanpu�ez<;:ez i +notes of June 34,2011 states C$Sa.numbsr��yp�:. :. lt9�p�i�8$ EX�lrer�PerEnit- Re� ......: ... Tim %no x..I ��. thOak Ap : . ...: . ... . . .:.....:.. . ... .: :: Fags 145 of 00 : .. :: .:. .: . ... . .:. Page 145 of 970 The following document was secured:fro m the-CI" document in.its:0094nal:.form supports the: une: Q 201z nofes:ofOf# cetr Paula Frojae seen above : mm 1st711.:till+ftf.IN�SVRc:17r.N.Y)tVL�.oi�'.. :::. . .` :::. :'.. .!""'`r : .tune 9,201'f ` : Ht�nd dsdiyered to Pater.in build€n�divlslane offlcg clit:0 09111 Peter Thompson 2988 Blackbird ar. t3azaman,.fv:.& On June Si 2011,Tim McCpugh;ps$ns examiner;Peter Tfic►mpsan and'i walked tht'ouoh nnct Inspected the entire structure located at 2.98e Blackbird Drive.:The following is 4 list of corrections. required that MOSt be 0WAVloted prior to".pPpmvai to accttpX.ttie.be nevi area as.a dwellins�, � } Provide fire rat l.exhaust system in the basement bathrtifvm.gr one:hour.*.ib Aerai€on. between the basement bathroom and the bathroam above Provide 20 minute rated:dw assembly in the roll owing door operting:a,: :... a: Garage to the: dement_ : :: : • Garaga to the house:.,::: + Basement strnga to the basement taundry roam r Provide two each seismic straps on water heather In basement.Per manufacturers Installation Ins.tructIons. Provide a.horkontal one.hour.flre rated separa#iott dividing the basameni artd the. irsi 1 floor of the house:.. Provide approved fire stopping bghvean basement and first front provide a one.Hour Ore rated sepsretign between th basement laundry room and the basement living area Provide approved Eire stoppi M.betmeen tiro basement,laundry morn and the 0gsement living area. Wire cap.and tape.exposed wiring In access hatch fgtt=utui�►sump pump IM,)aserasnE:' Install MST24 straps at beams in basement storage area. irtspectlanlapproval of the abovb€isms is raga€red prim 0 eppi4ve or6160 iency .. Pa a t-rojaa Code Enforcement 0ffitwr,But€�tl ft�s titirt l irrisbn,: P cfi'ofaefcr ozeman nef.. Bob k,ONSt Build�ng Git[cia€ Page 146 of 270 Page 146 of 270 ................................................................................................................ . .... .. -`E ...... .... .. N6w hip.Pt. provides a. emd d0pm. try. a�?�f�rn nt;on..1,2�,1.1::.014..The aite�red dooutr ent,do rir Be nin` t date t f 7 5:20 X `p .support t©C�.:2U 14 .. . 0 'The CompXauat states that no C rhEicaf of Otri upar cy was issued Ito the. ► fmdant base h had failed to meet therms.cfthe.:agreement .. '..': �... ..,. .'.. '.. :aetirxxu��xry�r+:r.:avr�►.r.;�;.''`..'.:: ` :�:,�:�+�:.�. �;`' J�, :e,. + u%a: vea.i4:. ° una�r a ! . ° bOr Th . p 0 : : ah Jana 8,2QN pt M ush;Alaris Jcemirter,'Petet7fiiaripsorfi end 1.tvatioect.{hroggh m d: fnspedted the entire Miniature located at 2988�3}�ukbN'd eve.The fallot+dng js a list of.correavons. ►squired that must txa obplstdd prior to snY aaprov !Q 4IIcupY faasem+ent area as a { Pravide .I�t exE usl.8ystep ;its d�a t�aaement bathiOorn•et one tour rite sepamllon .;_.,. betty n.i m bas"rit bathroom and the Oathroom above: } prarrdeb rrtiraut rated ticoressgmbty In the faiioesnrtg door apdriih : : . eel aiyu ic►ti lei iwidriei IL Gard to gd.. the hQum`i . .� � � � � � • sem+erst stora�a td f�e;tic�enieilt tAtirt�ry room: � � �. . . �. ,j Al Pr etdolwo head selsrnla:strsps pn wa#er_heather in trasamen1.Per manufacturers. , . fisativn lrtstructit�tls �: i Yids harizoritat one hourflr tat *paratton dIvIdth ths. assrnentnnd the hdUse,, •Frovid0 approv d(first ttaor. t'ravida a ons ittiur fire rated sapGrattan:bereeri the besamgnt"laundry room ar�d the bosemst►tliVingreG >° ` t rovide; ipprc�ved firs stopping bgtK�eert.the basc�ritwnt!sundry rrsro m anti iha*ement lining area Ire, and tapir axposOd�,g inafcosss hatch forfut sump pump fn basereent. .Mstal[ ST24 straps ai bums fin basement store area, i inspeationl ppftral Of the above gems is required;prior to approval of ocoupAN anny� :006 Enforcement Omperi Pulldih irtsta Cfit►rR t�jti�iston . 0 t70y ti Bob kt hiet 13001r _ctfi alal .. . ..... ... . .......: ......:.. . ... ... .. . 270 Page,147 of 270 Exhibit.7 :. .... .. : . . 2. Statemen#a;w th�n..�CR Q14- Q.0'7Q.are;contradicted k ;ttie:doet men : provided by..Q.ty: ul r in :axpe-C off:Robe E.dw rd.Nordby:::'; Mr. Nordby piro ded the. Defeed4 twith.the.following documen#: Depa 141i�pi"JRuz1 g n g Otiom This certificate issued iiltrsutxn#:.1>n,tl}a Toquii anmilta of the 1.i�t�srtu�t ofiut'.I�esiilential CatC$ eordAilax,that at the time of ist3uuitoa.this ai tlin tticos. strucure WA:A iioucioth Eh ofthy 'Id' tiingcna$i o:vulintts: rsoutuice of.ii Gartiilcate.cif Oceiiii ncy shall not be enu�triiusd c ttri s►pjsrovttil o@ R•. violation of the pruyiskotis�.of Lhis cock,or utfa�orclixitigcap..Rf the 3uriccclirtinu: Cieoiricates presutiung to give wutliority.tpv�b W..or.ugneoi tl#n prom. jj.of this cods of . t1tGc. cli fl .tli�r jur3ediet3on txtirll:tini;.lo:.�alti: erml.Number; LaQ Qwoer of Building: I3cuilciing Address ' cS6TOO til'll ultic+IDi I%r t1r!N Ut,l•lttV Vr(`: tj Mr.Nordby pkro �ded tote >�endaa#;w.11t .tbe, ol# g.tYumeiot Kitchen Mood&Duct Fsrrnace boar ... Pig lace stove77 ... Y Accessibiii - . .. Bukftrt :. .' SRC ; .. .. .. A Fine Ckardnce Ptannfng Engfneerin _ FINAL FINAL I O N R t) P ' R O. -U •5etlion 3.o15chi0ikr:"Comtrionce wrih the rCqukuwntS of the state bufdinp Cade:roe physt sl Bra ag4101*to WWII."0 00 ilfsles dues not veer s.rriy rauarantee cofrpF'"Ce with the Ame ool with ftlWlwi AjA of 1990,file UhabRaLi}on Act ot':T990;utp ltefrap�tfoa ACt ai;9?3,theE. F�'lious!ngAr�:tdilfafrLSAClufi�>18,Title99;tZhaptar2;.tarltirktn�yimuv�t.asOie�lontarL3tluRl�utilplKSAct,hrntfeer�liTfetterat,stele,or local laws that awollow awa4�s Wy to eanr+lerdaf r nnstettaYfotl oc nxxti fairr�iwusing. Y. PACT 5: Page 148 of 270 Page 148 of 270 ............................................................. .... ........... ......................... . ....... Exhibit`7 : 1V�ar.;Narxlby p�rov �ie+�#hc Dfe enc ant the following( [IcumeIlt:; af; ii ri , tom' .,b. G .:'. uiliin jades ' qRK : ` r A. Page 149 of.270 xxhi Mr s Mu�riray; )l es tlftDfoupwin statomen :wit! ii g n the c©mplaiXk. . . . mischaracteriizing the docuini�iats cil' l+r.llox,tby( eeia above as follows.: A. l'la:�.Built#,ink*L)i�°iti ric c aadup— e puYsiiani to permit r 1 Q-1.0 nti pp..4�,.p;in:he4:10.:`2i)1A Rc l ert°Ud hcyrclhv. Buildint _ ltiSpcetilt'tt?T EMlI<Build'in 1�•is i ii: i sut�tl fi"c�i :fic n'. i[icc rc s�uiriii :tht*w. t c�l�ecti�e yrt�>.h u;esxc�h�.c'c,�n }e«ietl rr..p4ppoo.0q:.l:�-120.104 and allowed.win ora p rY' occurs ation.p.l'the l()Wir.IL—.'el...ci.f`tlic<l�ti±ll'tr: ,�t ' c:t,tr.:tli isf cctri•��;t�c}n;.. b 1 t.. . .'l'l1e.C"etiii tcati: �f�Qccupta.4y;i :Su_.rd.tipi�rclj� iis lir tlt ."I:Rt�}crrt; '` �r. bu;+c:itlGt3l cY!'I.tt:Sttvctitrc=,.t'ttrStt%lllt.ca..[:lt .'..4 pilclin t51'6ci1�1 is . aitt�toriacc� ld�.i.itiu4 it tt:.ti�l?►frcir�•c.eiitl'tc.<ilc,t�i'c►:•.cuptine�! �cfun, the Ctitirc:«=csrA coverr�tl b}�a��iirtttt ri.cpn)pjo..tud p iivi0ed,;;uc ti t�cittu ith cii•pc rtiC�itS ciin t�4 c�ccupic tl 4;aic.ly.' 11C buildirig.czf iciiitl Rs r.�.qu:rcxl:i+..sct time;tr'Am ciunqu W1i1c:11 the lempc.rarycc li.tic-dar,i~,vulid. .Nurilb allowed.uritit..nc:cP�1tltt►° 14.:,:tf1,6f r iimplc-tion or.the Owed ol-rc:ci vc.i'iiww:surc�to ho ccvrtiwa-e io. ictd c0:1 li qati ty Statcrneti3ttks of the complain not gro pportki Uy matiV,rr" 1 fonts. Page 150 of 270 Page 150 of 270 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... . :Exhibit 7 3.'Th6 C6S ts. based+an docume�ilation that Mrs.Murky knows thetty.:has: dgaapnlox aarittc b ver The.cQlaplwat stot�i . caii.:tfuil :thoI)gFi,Odaat...Ows"allf to t3 "' 20. t�� ltiri :tt t c rti; tt x:�t c y, �r tlxc ht} cn a i�t f sad��s , 11t :. ( .: . ....3 it t c t c�; mgl h. :vitas .:1'�n Op Augus�t:12,: 13; purr y r . v seal th fthoPty bad:adMtted that X'ermit#.$;7 5.vv .nat;expi3red,as al el ch 'a+ t�:r�zed Wit S. sm: ahoye, apd'. ,. that:lVlr: Tordy ltiad:. ►lrovid es _ ,fgo..ttt !+ tioh hepping pprtt:. #.$=75 ia> + ud: ndn nit+ Ju€a _ +Rf242 ;Ci . Bittildirig:I)eprtment 01.! pfr.0o :. 'riweved ' .p �1.1� fraxa t; da � > eaeimd: tlx : .efr ;�tr':�f :'x�4f � e. �xia�.xd l .�> sxisecaz vas the . : . � le�tR, �,lzs�►e�ta:c�ri wad for- �� �r� i�f i���.l� : ...+a. .lo.gat��d: an+� , ex it i� 1 ham' rint i.l. `l�xri '°i2 2��, a sv :.an. a p.grove oti Piet' ,Pi wna 1 ::.'..' ;. ...:.... .. .. y Page of 27Q : :• : Page 151 of 270 151 .. 4. Statements of the complarlgt�mischaieteiriz�t .+evtdenee.and arrt>rtot grounded In fact. Mrs. Murray having documa#ts$Oen.ifi;i m. a �e;whe ,e a+Cit .'ad its.Permit #84435.was ood.atxud' . : .......:. ....:.. good* :....nng a04,tl!<e..G O:pefen.&I t�';ap'ofQgi � `t�#lint over t�c iCi ,ty mistake in the mai#er;lVlfrs Murrray makes. 1.0 fo11ownatg statements In C. aracteriziug the evidence: 7. In r tippnst:to the ttcttie� tl�c n�iuitiFlht:~K i c�fuleci:.ti'Oq0iOp0th..BUHdin 1?iA sityri . tc?cli sJu*s .arl��tix�.rtf t~ $.Wvfy.i§.pig Intluriutt;f t�.;��ir.6cai. 014ji~iltti':.�.:?.(}.1.!: .ucsuattt:tti..tx.Arai.Pert.tit p. P. $,d35 l.' fcr"1'ltc��rtp �t>t.ttiul:tli CitV.(.rfBoze hah t3:i,iitling.Div-sioh-OtOlin..0 an: • a rounwlii(Iter :akr Apt"") lyit liiitiliy ty {iE yit t v nrtbtu lir ttttr�;i: rl►vcallitt unit nt.?i� $Ol.wWrct:is rilc:ecsR irtgctinti i!`cit. .r ritl.4�ntiitl:ittu l b�ir4.:::: `> tt�S4t.1lt lCtl(I:. .. :.: The City did First attempt to.revoke the Deferidant's Ce' Wate.Qf Qcoupa c by alteg rig the expiration of a unrelated buildin g permit as 4.].awful reason to revcikt«the De f6 dams G of Q. e City then admitted the unrelated,.btuldrng pe3ralK was:in.good sta icl t g btxt#fie:C:itX ;till maintained they were revoking the established piroerty rights.0th Aefendant's G;.of ta.. The D fendant'had no intention ofattending.m tin with the Ctty if their intent was to persist.�vith the :unlawful revacat3tm.of the Def��tdaut's property rnglits:, Today.Water aailod. aft.:to exp,La>ixi;. mee�inq this, L��c�ay�.,;.tte:.:exp.laa�ne.�:::she;.:ti3s'::�::..srf: .O::.ia�as'.:.:. going Co. be revoked for tile. b t ez At..tlae,.weeet:ing:.rasa. tr necessary and. he Oas cgo3�ig: t:a: Iair�. �: �t:�o1c#tey.: :� explaaxted from 13sterei119 to :trh�..�ha� cowerset ipty. kze .hed "t;ix t304 Risk Lest: PX d'a that: 86h..*i,a treri::t c�.se ::up : its:meet:.zng:.ErQ. eLvold revoking the .0 of .Q: Ai d. J�te.want:eci au.,fP to tta' come-.ift;with .a:. xtDned: Van the 1 csttse.. .taacp.Eat:ri d r. h+a>:trd:Hokt st3►r..txtat the w a e..hat 6 .. ;. did at have to. be . S.c�mpJ.eted ::xea,dive: �;;,f�a;�°::alrisiaact~ o��` :'. The City's stated purpose "o tl rnee '`: in item:7.Ofthe ram a' .. t pl. mt{seen above i16 item.) is contradicted b Mrs.Frv' e's Page 152 of 270 Page 152 of 270 ........ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......... Ekbib t S. The A�r����;u�::af�oh:'�t%$k. �;,Y�e� l.. the sty way.gr ded. �h ev�den�e ; dDep dur�ssskdemoustr4tng thefact1hat;Mr'Ksh;ha tu r colmP lied the Defielndant to the A►g ement illegally. m rs.1l+ "POW had this eviit�etErce ttb��t#ls.shown..iin'lf+�uxs 2,3 end `ab©�►e©b Augur*12! 20t.3. n Augu0:12"`,2013,the D+ fendautad the fallovw►ing stutemnts to:Mrs.-Murray:. i•Istrisllt�: ;�1t��ilt..:l:",.'�1;�..: ..:�..'.;.::'::;-:�..: �..: ,.:.: `•::. ��: ;:�: ��'� ; :.'.:':: . :. :�. q. c=��l. �i}t`t.liiic,� =d M. rZ :,. r . . t. '1. i'`i `Ii• tii LiC Ptii;i•d'].)i�`.:e1..itl'�*ti:c1'E,tilii'�11y€l.G. �. .11.e clintf{t��r��tttt 1r {(} 1;0. 1{ t;s'e €ttttiiltEn n ;� l tit<;e t*s It ail. ttl l ja�l�itjikt sl t011 11 i1i" %lilt( ro'k-IN Cd OJ t ll.?t lcy lyurni t \t) ff t 10.130 (See \glachtttq nt 14). 3T1trtt11tts inlride .ln V'ilttr.March 5 101.3 }ttlei'to et'trt Lis 4ltic cl tl';�t)i1rEt'U tillYl 4`.1'i1lltlll'lw, agieetett i'@litt4°ll.t(1 �)E'1'flll1 il(l:{}f; ?4 ti :iic' llr�'u} ililct i!l�li`i�itCcl:t�t curt .)ct:tIVAnc% w. pitrliii( N..c). 1 O }0} t) ,?t),£, '3.1{ ic+alaticm <tl pit r c pn�fi tioii wrmil.no.:[};?=7.�1. tier mm irlticti�itl st17.ill. 6i'iii64t d ON It lt�t tt lrit4`ilt t)1':ilt�.'csitl:'�:tn:.(aro�isirtt'fitiii€t��d pc.'t'll�iitiil '} 1t'} rs�j�c.ts \�lts i� t114'tL'arcs tl€)lap is in,liti�rt "ret �r that:1 fit)ds} .. 1 �ii4tltierly,r)!itht5 Et��llitit;tt)r it i`itlrt icy(t�i1 e �El{rP}irctti�'d'nti}Sut'io n »i. in lit?c}tys Is i l les:xE. �9i:t: } t.(VO.e did'.r�� .+gi.l c tl n tier pest ymlzd iiu.tcy;sttstiito tl7cli tluIt i�td ' ore l dtnd.l 11 have a l s keeliiig Perii'iit o. 08�7��} d sitill.djog 4ttt 1�..:'ltad ail..a#i{imO d insii 6ri if..(,t :I ls�ai,l7� lcti €Sttiii)L �i6d rk!bor s)rt.jpitu,7 :. itncii :aEidit�s Enrci,ltltiiar sit'�(l.I "'(5c��,.iittttcllit3citit:Y7}, i })tarst1. itw.liilg.csii.,l,tinc 8 `'0 1 ath is.j �tl, }Zi4i::Ehat 1 ltttd:r4c ei4c=d rlrt. -,I pio c�tl j tEt i�a3ctiiait;titd ttiitiit lici't1, 743k and L++l.S ltt _000d Starlditt�.'V\mrs }"rc)jtiis tiPpc)rts,°d Eh se 10 ,, 11 tic ts�; l!'. Ibis .ills itll�' 1isn11� ! sl tht�,e t�lcc tiE.itiA tit( : illy}1c ctic�iy cisi trsit Lci!lilt._ti1r, ltisk.<lici this itt iictt t.t)l�nt�, ft" �1r i:i4)a �nd:a ir. Tttn Ic scur?lilalri ii-cirl}.sji iEtiti �itttl.r :'OLIO A'OLIO Mr:; Risk. 4,w.ti,;ll a::�-v its<'i.o:i't r�+'u :tlz�,:cir l .atia�::h tl,irl.ng.16-aIIKS�1' L11[ttlni,ltC�.Ll7ltrs3i'tl4lii)j�:�;�£t�t..lt:.����::�.G.E'i1i As ti3ii' wci h�� d l'c'4w"Issi �sii�til4 x'l�r'��iriettt�kitltNi.r.., IZl�E %011t irts gilts►t`t.tltt:ttl't'stlitttl:t)1.l: iilllti 11 ti tt,�t:: ,.' cj.i`1`� }: ricltt etl i ti in_i;'.(':ofth1".lettstr ' :..;.... ... 1y `' • F.. • '�: _'. ;'..f ., ,..`,T;,._.5,:,.,.. :.�:'.;, .'. Y .::::, :..':;.f:..�. .t:ltt�'ctli '�lt.l:'1('. .. ila�t 1.��:,:�� �,:ifi;. ,tiui..+���.rifits�c,rlt�;tttr�.atsrn�zx�l�.�t+�r. t r . .:,:i ..4 :.. .... .. :. :.. .t �'siist'd.on,,Ah Ultt {i4; S:r1�4"mont���1�itl�t s{ L1i i�tr ;Ri�l. tti.{31c}S i ls.lrie ltllc'� �9r. . . : Ri k' lcit4:iirii' art. i';ik:'t,ttnt„nErttt.. ittt ..r?. . tixt h r nf';y { : t1t C�i ,l..i�i t A. .. .: "' .. .. Pa6e.153 of 270: . : ! . ' Page 153 of 270 Exliubit.7 tllirit:ir, ciiin(VILica'ciitis#iiicieii;y:uniil E)ec i tkier c t'rOF:3' ilicitk��it'i f�` Iti's pttrt, 17NoN%that\.ntt lume roceh-qd; :trti�:i it i�..:�.I'tlt . it~ttc. :i�s ,tie rtt 4°i.k tn;.rtrli it ,t r eC(U it ALIUM ':'1 I hia.trirt ttrl� :ncttt in\nlir,nos z-Si011;c ICtlt'l�:'w ino thL.r J'ct`tiic.J,i:�. allows.#tor CUIttJnuc�+f.ccsn�i�iic t,t�ti 111!(i Ue i'mlyc'r(if;�[I.E :l�i`ith!tl,z lirrtn4 at;r�recirte;tt ti,Il� cliscic e(1 vot,rclepartnie+nt a iin iiclt itt: +cac) #titEt:tllii�i.: lt,Itisl:'to tors Jtitt:iia breach c+l'thi.ag-reenicn7 .Mr. Risks br6ich Oftiii"ngr&iiwnt is.il its i1:rc�ti�iiis 2 11 did ash:the endc':enfore-cl twnl:.Oftjtc-r . . #.`s � tl ur.dr.tC a ac>,.. r�tt.ctu:>4rihe e#'b� Mt,- tick i Ivy. �i�t'e ri�cit h'i el.:,+:uti.k:,lcl a<.nir liitG::}'irl3.i#1�*:cinl':vou:hlrwe br ccictc�.c'ttl'errcrni4rttt�t'#.iicrf°,t�jae .ibis.heroccu iu l� t.1-A Ila. iO=IUI.3C? I?Ic,s� prt duc..of fl;c ul`t lie.Otlter aHeLi("d tFi7R lrAth:pcc Ilt]t,nC�'r)t'rr,iilw t•rt�cartced In Wur. Cllrrl tiE)un(li;llC�s 24 [ resliez.tlitlly'3u5t,i:ctiir cE4intiiciit.Ccti,titti .hcititiif%n ..tlicy.e�i3lgiL ctc(i:jialtL: Is►rt111t.. :. sicy• lt)-ltt) t{} ti l'trc1�` `Irfc.,J'Iat�tct}#:.t+tltie;I'[�jttt%kta4 rc irttt5ly.wtcd this{�cn> it a 4, :; t.tlid 6fte•+Jet ring jnO M,.. Ilitil ' .a:r le n Any.1t11tT, 4'ISe.1, 1 t " tcti.uilY.att����4.}itktr,clmorttncttt tttrtsict�t cilr>:ciit 11t:Ri.sl�tii.i ti�ini the :.:.... :t re'cntattt tltttt hc`ete,tiecl.tll(l l(t,]]}1C1E4'(j 111C t(>si tt h} the ally rc*vokin build*ing.lic`rmit no,09443#l.I'this a,rMiiw't,l;.is re filled it should alla�i.t r li►sl r tm4tfuc.tisan titttc. #�etueert n+s«:{titaJ this iaa�t lkc:'ttihce oiit lc�r+turd 2 1Etrrnatirc l�, I„t�%ng E�i(i�'eil;\lr:lti�l, ,ctr;;,ntl rcWi: ation Of reErutt inactit iq oti tEiea prhjim to h.j�.InV6g, ld d, t'cizurd Ntr, Ktsl<4 un'(ilnr'I ail' 1 hel7tt�ic�r h�..al�iltcinn,n'*11r,.[tt5l. tia�lsae,iient.t,tcl tc�Eiitt ncunxt,tJs.ti(,tt 11UrE4 undcrtltz•. ti111'til:,l t�i,ilclllJg u,itl p�'rn1i. 31 #itig procgss'1-his by rpilvant,lt�,the i##6wiIE'.'.fie;+ut�eel .:: I�ttilcli,'�lyelntit.ttci.fl.;�-;}3 i�s liit.i+'u,tc:.11himinL in�pcctl)n teii 'I'd d.cii a 1h I:. . inspection under penttit no..0844; 31`hi :�Wul i Jllc�c%.les i,�+.icy. I_:trteiittll .to cntttl,l'Ic ►�ithe+ect tuts IJt .c'in 11%*di lable.insticl.ititIIiit'.4titrjttiiitr.iil"tlt .r�•liitt.iiting:t�utk tin�ti . pezrJiiit ttt�..ft.�-?-I: ; . :::•: ': .::' : :.': :;:::..'::: ::. :.::.::.::: .:::::';:.::::: :..:::. .:' ;.:::. :. . :... :. E The Defendant's,statett>wttont,thrait Mr..R1i��.:d d,tlsE�it Y:compel the Doftodant to the agreement as stated above trcM.4..104 t>ti;dl. puit0d hy:t be City and DOMOndant's statoptent supported by documentathori ere tetd by ihe:Clit�► CadJa. nforce � m nt t[l ee.; e tr aafr Page 154 of 270 Page 154 of 270 . . .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...... . Exhibit 7 ;,LAW AND ARGtJMEN: G.Aftetr.havla xl<xade dear facts relta►1�ri :ta;fihe xllgaZ 0emelt of Mr.Risk to the. Ci1tN A&:dexnoxASt** .I'pJtem.5`:abpve;D�#'$ndnn .w d the follgr tng request to..the Citron Au . st 23� `20�.3:. tY gu .. . 39T ti�a4.4:.arc +,;ici :c. .ids: s.3":;i31.�: ;vi i i:4: ti 1 S h lin 1 (�.. t 0.974.� � tt i J� t �ii} e� c une.cil' Cast;:tit���lc��;���i��. ci�lx��i�i�rt ��t� �c��tttc��;l �tlZVal I't`t l?c lit l)El oli.thi .-III vA `t wld tli-� legapty 0 tt8il1gVue • ,.�I.�. ur. .i���., E�3. . .i ::icy edit t.;xtxtE3.:l�ts s,l t .sit cal Rini ,.;.tI 1 ::F�ii t S . j c�c uCe OWN ! ' !. y I () Ct 111171111ilCdtic?I1S Il�r t '11 121:1: i : �. iy �' .l� c� rr'M Om et tl� t��ti llt 1����rc illt lol e i! ww lii tlCtll)!I i't'<x lt�ltii) t131ti.�a7xltt'r°: t'ix d this 6111C. 1°lit l•iunc'{)l l '` 7.The fact th�it the.Glty e�xna ns cut.. Is August+nf 2013 regaiding i#cxns:5 and 6 ,. above is�.e�feetive ndxlni?issilou th�f fats as stait�ad I .the:dof+endr u Are.tine. Silence g�ye� rise to agrei anent. It<r ».Moral p O.W.:legal#erg; the City adxp is.the facts of items 5.and.8►ab±ave.4x`e i ie�.,th�manner of nn.Ace+r�unt Statlid.kreetnent. S.The City$refussk to+Gonarm or deny xtelaxs.$jwd 6.above:via'DeIau4ants Discovery R+�qu�est fs..r ar±ded ss s arixtx><ssion by�conlrloet per Sh altos v.United States, 983 9.The * artieis shall cr�erly possible ei 'ort iaa good faith'to s#ipulate to all facts or points of law+the truth si�d ex .tytence of W-Oh is: 4t oo>vlt Oed.and th. early resolutioa. of whieh.will e�cpedite th+ tr�ra0 Pursuan#�kQ; b* 6 327. kusrlat t0:.4frw 5- 27;:teenaa. it:; o _the.City to admit.the City "ow vv of credible:wateAal eVAIdeuce d+ noinstrr� ng the A rexnent that xs the gravamen of C 4 4-'00 70 : . s.file ,.. Q . ..:, : ..s w :. ,. ..1;.. Page 155.0f.270.. . : ' ::: . : : : ::;: ..: P4ge.155 of.270 Rule 37(c) states: "Tf.a party faiXs.t©a riit:.::t i .`txath o. :any miler 4S.recuiestedubder Rule 36. and if the party re uestin he clrn� . . cl gt a - _ ..:....... '�sixm' thexeaftor proves.. .the tnO of the.matter, the requesting party may apply.to: !e cot xt:for ail.order requiring the other party-to pay reasonable expenses incurred in leaking tbnt pxoo " Pursuant to MCA 46_15-37�2 e .u�l.ytatie�l�4i:twfaat�atian tlita#.tcurL�.t0 nirti af3e,or�. . . ne gate to the.Dof t:s .. Defendant.. � se.: � ,t....... :..:.... : . .. :..:. :., . The Defendant is`entitle to hove erl` y" f the.C. Atta�>i ey'; volrk,pro dtxct generated internally upon.lrecci P.t:.of the:I +e~feedarit's: 0 3 thrrit�Ql4:cor es .nude ce Murray on the matters.that have re6ulted.Yn 10. The following statements of the Defendant's affldiwlt have;not been.tlenied by.the City. As such,:the:.defetxdant brings the foliovrIAng statements'.as.statements Of` undisputed facts: : 1 QA: Se .tem4elr 6"' 201 as f0j�p.W Its' l�t)Ik.C1.s have.11'1S>: uc ions tl? i.(�E OI '�` I ". c , .er 1S.d.1 l.1i It.�i zcl.thiti e1j: n. fc,!p m� ahilitj to ohtaill ulli1t'111Li111311.41pLl.b11C ! C©rtl tilat 11111 ter t71t 111ltl�ta. ln lily positio n from a legal I)c1'st� Page 156 of 270 Pago.156 of 270 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... .... .. Exhibit:T.,�: to all. this ity k I daftlect my:Aflity la. S! h ffik ob taro l; Iorillati lIA)W.pu1 Ajc rewt41b4.1 qP9R-:.v:usqj, I 11.ev.11lual, My ppshion fr ti . .9 p in (if m vall. I lldv� to j�a:b M I f 'th Ad IV 1-10. 0. stat .1, WaCclullate askmne the gotemit'Nit Alj.ov IS:, c. iq.cod � 6:t ss rthi�. Uncilt. :4; 4� n 11 a i-vasqt 6rity'bl".41 v,�ivqllcsts fiitn varibus city, d d (�gc. ay. m, or.b. all VN. wo �Jll 4►cc by 0 en cite-attoi'O.vS .1 Mph bf-Mike Li 611ploradj T. w 0 bqond.whtatfie talcin 6rihd chy�attprncy.ilrl ho.il'sestaff paii:proyk At ....th.- .-0 M f4l t, 6.do O.Ml i0bf,' h.q. . .... . . .I ovosj. S ft, 10A##4.l()jB' Wv ..d 0- al"aerxhip gimpture with icy lll:plunninwood A collab 0 f4 provent. -tommunication old f ario vus City emo" in Digdover ;obstructsxkd--AcccSa fo y 44 9..014 400 to t 1-2. 201 he city us, .9 Oi. S. my;Wtiti�, :ketistiati6ii- W-do.culnent r u.1�4 .4iia hA�t6 bocni 11 p S i piimnitiq N41 Rk iliqMllaildfl-n: and 0) J U 1w i U ic.�vciillon of P: MOR Nlo.a: 8 ov x ray p erAPY rovid ofn I 1 1 , -comlllvAt or#m her, ''.ve'r rdl p'nied lWas of nw:clireol WT ttell otint.rAh dq" W avcos Oon.bf Ntv.IU'�j legal."activit.V40 V ttF.You wid vouroffi6 t lusai to evep provide aliv what so t'. er relzarOut the 1it.6--bf xlv.. 1 4 t. 'a t d ith.� Lie iptwnl rm. a m.A.-u.0 1 s pm-Wl Pi VC tj Wt. yo rcoi idvn6i::,kb***,Vetz Oodv:oll tie interit d�y -8,1, r3, of an. 0111*3) 111M -mm PAge.157 of 270 13. M the manner of account s#attic .ai d.a. in ss on.by condoct the City has admitted that Occupancy Permit.M..`1,Q-16430; 5.a'.va4d,46.61 tent tbiAt.coulld hot.bove been revoked without due process.as It. it apres�nts.const�ip�[ou�l pr�peirly:right:ot'.tti+e Defenant.thattre prt>itctet.'une�r tle '.Rkmutdmerit 't l� . t lurra� .: � S Regarding , ,ancy°. : . ..� ,::.': ::... Dear kV 41 C. ti-l.i.irrav, $ l IElvtne bY"ota Eit of 4tlttr tttic*Yttiull in 111Y Sept�:.t ibei fa6` 013 t tt r:tq}pti tEie ijyiplt~ tact that constrocti6q ryork pepi ittecl L1nd.r..E�uildlY,i�� �etlnit �"si;..10=�.Q[`3Q.��'ht�tZ t�Uttt��1�[L �4.ns intended to ITICet t4c. C.'it)p c r 13.cizeman's.ttli���m4tin;tecluit�einc:i�ts f`rii:c�c Gupcli�i:'��71 ' \tirsht. City ca#`Bost=tzuun 13oilditi lnsp.&Ior did in5pcct the xvoi* ivlwn cclnipieteCK,I t li�und it to he in conipfiance`%V1t#i IIle pertnitt�;c1 ;:cinstri s�'ttcsii.tfc t umcrtOR: tljcn issucd 0ectip-ancy pcnt iit'.No. 1.0:-10.1,3( s l id llle fi r 'Sai11c�.p��tictcf�#r �citt:t wtil4d tq.mt: i . vour:5cptot)jb.cr 5' 291.:3 letter ! la\inn no ilti.� t..ie:�t�c�lise;citj..tl7is:tto�ac., 'u�f� .cl�".' vpt4tY11 cr.6.: .rU1;3..Ic;lltl to�:tfu rc• ;1it'C{Ifll;OCCU�IIlcy f� rt111t [4 1(l-I p#i€ ►a� � hirf� ti�ld bv tli :C'ntic E ri#cyrcr�l4�nt . (:)Cl icer PtlttJtt l tvjt C.tlia[.�'. %Vcre lyric t0[1i.C)ct ttpancY •iii t,No: et cor niminrezeitet no iccum ira :t tio .0� ( I�U,a ' m1 t Av e know lhtlt C c ul �N-as.11aw atllv iss.ucd Ind A dncti ent;tlioat xtiII stand Lt in court 951t t•tltt or alnt°one c.'.I�t*t'C1tt. tl' ; : .. .�:. :.:;• t t.�in t,;tatitftt t:�a.i[1 s st are.o Any nunit ium��equir meets t,i, Final occ;Etpanev as d`taiied to [Ile to taut°.S pticttcr that 1rc not trtet y work cotnp.leted under conswuctic�n.iwrolif; 16. 1 0�.I I. Cl 1 1 aisi 14t:tiic�'l tici%4 as soon as. la��ssiblc� and tag* ! •ill Mal.t„ 6'wecticsnS f L t�pai rt. Under the Fifth Amendment td the U'.S cons.. op " Person shall,. be deprived of life, liberty, or propel,.without nue RROCPS.©l`law�' `. Page 158 of 270 Page 158 of 270 ;. 0 to` 213.1er4. Mrs.Mnrraystat~s a , ci nhrVh � the Defendant: the ag,reemen,t allovc�l !o> to occupy.11to,baasement r�►�th a tomporary certificRte of QCC]111�an . . . . ugu64 3, 201 th+y Dlafoudant�u d+�#1 a o11 Jw ug request Of rs, Murray: ::.: . :.:.: .:. ... 46 , i lc„a:�� }�rc�ci�t c�:�:c ic;� . 'tl +�. it . d lei E�c►j ar> r� � u�I j1c .E� rn►.it r. 'r l lc�la_�.cr��� ' -�ti•:11.1 s� ottor" to b.zir. 1$.pNX! 1.61V regL eswd irt_m�.lttt�ii�t.1�'�� lettdr to vou. 140.Ab6ixt�e .1 of l�eC. M. r tic Debi r ASO.p6a4p.a m.Itton request.to the .City#itat. hcyrorvi�dc a copy ot'the ciocurnein�t list referred t+pr,. p the docuxtoettafion pr4vid d by t1 :city.ou:tea.1 "' of December 201 '�'h1s O.Own tri��t.. u u, •e've0d i.City i1as ev�iderice af.a'1�aripa ,ry`Certixeate o �ccupany. .:.. :' 14Q W?A Del'6 diinf inirst l]�cav ry request to the+pity of January.2, 2015 the Defendant again asks City to Pr•avide the Dai�uncrenit.iist t�r�or�bed to their Docunentafi�oi� af.12-1�-2Q14. Saxue as lte 4�:4bove.: 1 Dafendanl"secand:Discovesy 1qu�est of'3anuary V':2{i15 ma4es.a specific docament requ s#af.item A,above Wit Defendaxtt' .+discovery. 14 Tli�,Deb au.tt.has a right:to know it the City p s$ess.4 t�iiuput arty certificote of occupane ors.referred ib in tli comp aint. od in Mrs,Alurray's corxr. pon�iece. Failure Qf the.C�ly to provxd+e the document,Xist described in their. pJ avid + acunxe>i�ts.on t2 1 2014 ptre�eOis the Defendant from�nov�►.iug if the City will usis e oxky Qi`th+�,p vtd@+ dooi m+antss as.a T�>gtipo1* Certiu+�ate of Uco����noy: The City's fa lur :tt�..p v de:,the.ir:. efe inc ed=;document:L t.,prevontts Abe D+el'eudant from kno�v�ingvkate dneaments.proOWO iY by the pity are�:anri snbsequentiy the City . ri ' kbvi . :. se based..on� S . dpcnyneni,. iro ded:,b ::':tbie:Ci '.16 . .. .. ...... .. . ... Page 159 of 270:. :;< .: :. :. Page 151 of,270 Exhibit:7 M. 15.The Cityts refusal,to provide.06 r eit eni". but Onjag do: iiin tion per item 14 above and the a City'a:rtefivaal.to.rnuial e'. .d ripe :rep .diseovery request of 14A+D above.from the Defendant thanwaulcl disclose If City did ever in#'act issue a temporary cerhf"tcatc of oempswey..;;Obstructs.*6 defendaws access to evidence. t a msaO f th6. Specific dare . . h eodalo t denited by:tlt+c City could prove a;tnterlal cosPrucy°a►f#he:ClitY , crut te.Ctyncrah+cy Lad uo legal ground to bring CR-2014-000'70 against the:Defendsint;;sad thalt t&e_construct of CR- 2014-0070 was:a fab icat>on not basedJ. u4 matei�a�si ia�ct::. 17.To.appear.leg*6.i.mtate,GR-:2014:000.7 ..�eeded..to ` . in�v. tbe:Ci .cun not 'gyp .Produce al legitimlatte Tetmporatry CertiRcate.of:Ocieupa�cN:T*:Citty fabtrie$tcd altered documents,reports and statements ofttie ompla nt:f6r this parrpo�scr : : 18. In t#em.12.of the:Coil�►pIA1141.Mis riff w .states: : The: efeodant pgiint+ed oust the incorrect dates in the.4gxcmc�n# ." 18A On August 23"d 201 the DefeA42.1at makesli<e following:trequ"t U ctir K . ,. . . �. �.la. 34f*le.j,e tell 111E Spce:OIk'i111_� ►%he'11%.C1ll:-.1ad cit Alt r iii �,titir&icirtmci t beciviie aNk.ile w' the discrepat cies.i11 the hi the agreement Oyalle h�°�lr:.iiitik..lutte:9" ,01 1... i As.r�tcltr�stccl .t ziil�.htleai►:.l�lr.11 eOF Vicle pie p aEWrWa�fe`ct�i>_�ntsf�t�t,.�alu�il4�� i ii�t►e itlit%nE f'lc�asc. tc�V le.;t ►►here tmd kftt e6i-1 4 . CII'Ctat115tailec .FaRe d14 trt ,id cl tltz,e it itiala. Plt�tts�� iiru�Icli�:tllfe,c,t .dl 011111utniCIIOMS I)CLW et1 ti1r. Risk ttnd the HO "hieluding . tiii�s� ►the n► :I:10-A 'iindi4*vod.that. .Ir...Ri l..��ec•:ii�tl:ri�:ixJter.thc u'pwci:t mt.nrioiri v 4:� ctitccl lit,{title rti''(}l'.: : MM 1$B..With flee:efendai t! second,Diiscoveay;request,gf.lanuary G `201 .tLe Defendant made specSic#� !c.Qrreiry regststt.of itui 1;$A :oboYe with..t>l!e Defendants Iawful powet~OrDiscovtiry ntkdCr,.CR--O 4-00070 Page 160 of 270 Page 160 of 270 . . ... ........................................................................................................................................................ E hibit.7;.': __. Q.'Th City Paadud: i unswori sttmeri#:+tip' ` e3ir vtt ` norccment officer: . that can bid cQnitradited bar the Cl► +c �r`s o�vvu uo u� i more comirehensive vvay than the:l�efenidant bias done vn the Complaint aitself; TheDefendant reserves the right to do so at anoth it point in fi 21.'Cbc C has long c©a spalx :d.'to.keep iof'orxmatiQ .l�rnm thra Defendant prior to bringuug R�- 0 4 00'1©.: f�v gation the... i1w has kept ro m the Defendant now Sp "mtou+e t ';i�;I ts+ or 'y'ra n p witl�ne d and abundant. R�gs�rdlem the .. ...............:...:... . ... ...:.... a i3Oe . a '#n::iuo.h"iurl :of' -•.20 1 t071. n ... 2 .xmttially DefndaQt.atadled motion to.disnis fpit ►1i .u�nier: ue:1t. :Sion the elel.0 entsl avaiiaibla for Defense of CR-2014-0007%.U.beemo.blear that the available elemeus.txt bette * ►trad7pon The C©urt. In the inS�talty.f►x•Rule:ll.unde�'. "It-notes©f WA#040xy Comnllttec on the R.ulpjhe follo*Ng sieemed relevant and may sl o big ret"anl even under a Motion To Disivb far fr Couirt. "Thy cQnrk:1k vail,able a varietj►�sfp+�iliXe sanetitan�.tomnp+ase for.vlolaoon��"Fh . as tho:6 d �du�ito reolma siug ngm ;or il+ans rtra; requiilring.partlrlpatit►na seminars or other edncationial programs; ordering a one Oayable to.the.eourt,.#"g tbe.matter try dise plinary sutherxtles,(or,iv the.case of• .goverpment at+torncy �tQ the Atkorue Caeral,.inspector General,Qx..ageney bead),, Art, 13. i 9 iit, Const,.:.ln ['l p oirortlot:.M titivq officers. . li acls o state pay lmentsl ill.Icisl of 'icers. ; � such ether a. i xrs :.ms nlay be r11 Q tis ed - J �are r 'cct to.:i� Al t sh tl.;li :r �I),oved provided tiffiCcO 0*thp-j' rc cccditt s for rq'ti gvnl irni ....... ...:. : Page i 61 Of Q7 : .:. : Page 16 22..Under the Fifth Amendment to the. en U.S. C��"No ieKsUn s lI.. be.r eprived of. Wo . .: �. out..t S. ei �Y,or P PAY wt. ... : ' .: ... .. :. ..: ..',.. :.;..:.; ,. ..... .. .:::,.. ..: :;..'. .� . . • . . ...:.. . . .. , . 22A.After threateningaud Dretcu, ill ,for dome Jhne,, Mr.1tisk-did:-officially: revoke the Defendant's property rights oa 7= U-2013:w►�itLogt Due Prot sac©f Law as follows: a` 'Al:.0 ;': '. D 'artM. :`i : This eartaficate issued pursuant to the ra ieinonts of tha WoOaticm l tZesidential Code certifying that at the tisn of issua x+�o'�G1i s: l ructure wae.�n.r. to li icta mthi the aarigu#:. s. ardinaneoa .the ex regulating`building copst�'uc�iva or uso.: Issuance oia 0610irica o of.Ocetiiattt�cy shell nbE he con trued'. s ss :$ppritttal of a' Violation of the pravisiotts.n#tixis cndw or otlxor oxditiai►aes af.the t i c iqa; : Cart ifiicates prequming to give author ter to ii�aln60 or cancel L. 0 t�ov�tons:of 011 004 at other o0insnees of 4.w k#risdiction shall not.he.vaiid, 0.;2, B.u�ldxta Add r Is' 13 .1d t official; `` Date' I M.�.Ss�L'n..a .� 23_vvinen it hecanle apparent thgt.t e,nefendant avast nolt n� oirt:�nFxe�.ikitie i.n�i���raace claim,the City and the:BOA,rather than prnYide th :Debqdant.ram,requested documentation that'wonld*uppart 0 title ins. am '�C1glima'tfie.sty aund:�[ A ratcheted up their efforts to.break the d$fenilobt and.htu3 feumtilyl... .thdr.home.aii�d tbg>tr title insured rights. Further Discover►wig pi0oduce'evi�lcnce risgurdiug thii asstartiop: Page 162 0l 270M. Page 162 of 270 . . .. . . ..... ........................................................................................................................................ Ekhlblr'].:: 2 l.. timeu:tty+ nou :eviEd nc : . 'v b e.ta.estab110 Imud Up+v1a he.Court eom teed by the CA :.:in.:G U 4 p.074 : : e:item$:1 tttra.2Z above.demaustft.. Y. . . . tY tie necesa��yXement .. . .:. . 25. Falcon V. Fautlkner. 27 Mint. 327 03 M. 19.. wont. I��129/199��Mates: d.up+ari: e;+ utt�-t atiau e:.belaevi�..embrdc+e:©u y: ha> s ties,off fraud .;,;.: .:, ;:: •>.: .,,..�14-1 :_ :: •.:.:. : :: .. ...:: : : � .: :.: �r is read vvhireb: aes crtteamgt # ic�Ebyeri't thentegr�ty uf.the.cau�rt�1 f. perpetrated..by10. te of toe:to�crt so thateudiciai :.aarach�nery cannot :.. perform:iri the:.u8u81:nxa�ner:,to.:�ts>•�ripar �;Iash:;:of Adjgd ieAt ng.caisos tb�►t sire.:: resented. ©r. d udi at Ono. :: . :. . .: .... . .: P "Exarmples oi`frsi uPam the onrt i�aclude bribe i ►�:eyid�,ace.t'abiiegO tn, and xmpropra�r atteifnpt to*t!uencQ the court by counsel."Broom, $2o. '.2d of I213. i• A ;fnrgcrl evidencc T an ictem ar Idit rxnnatxon rri >nufactnredx o�r:a ter�icl, to support sari�re ag�e�n[ia,r<s n+nt adx> ssiuXe In many courts, acludiag' ,S..:Criminal 26. . ::R- 41 b0070.is.deli a d to wr�r'k Aron d the facts:that top Def+endaot Pik ' laid dint to the Cx�y wYth hi�s:A►u ist�2 20L3 Ietler to�Vi�rs 1VYuxray. : : : 2tiA:.+ 014-0007. is �les�rgued o contest fit. t ie Court that City was barred f ram..brring th+e Com la�nt per Mule 3.B A as.lVlir,�� jsk's..ugreement is ilie ;ah n tbat tb :Defen+dant wars compeiled to the a eiment r�nclor durE,ess and r c OR CR-ZO d.�00d7U is design , , .c0 c . "rr`i im.the Cap rrk.that Catty was ha ircd.: 'rout b 'ring�tbe Comp t err.R� :.�.$.;�;: ).A. ax�t h-'d n et.City'S. stated:niii im n re Ul en f�►�r_Q cup 1 +"y t :2C 010 bad c rive l t 'inai` R: Pve,163.of.27Q. . Page 1.63 of 270. . . mug. ad ant dbuildiII permit.igs eetio d had establish Iproperty nights that coat riot be taken.away.under a unrelated building permit. 2C 6 CRC. � '7 ; . •..;: :. ,..,::::::: ... ,:. .;. ,,, ::.' : .`''`=``<: : �. 2!}1 Q Q s desigued to coneesi from.th6 C60 t that Crty was barred from briag.the.Co�iupiatut.per tuie 3:$A as the.Cert icat+e of occupancy No. 10-10130 issue4.64.9=24-2010: ros:. xQhe _:by ob RWom 7-30- O13 witLout due process vioiatidg:the coA; itutio i p `upe :fights'.,of the Defendant under the .th .. 5 .Am a m n e d e t 26D: The City works.to coat ki e:.to::0iriiceal t1k. IN t0:oi`2 A►.itbro:26. above from the city by failing_to comply.with Discovery ttegyests of the . .. :.. : . . .... De fend end :.. ;.....,: . .aII.t. 26E: The.Comgimat�tsetf repr�s�u�s�`orged e� deoc�e �ie�27 blow ..O a nst � . the Defendant as so many of.the stateiullQu#i4.. i :iuo�t grog©ded in fact:. Per 261) above, Mr. McCarty work s.to kepp'af ids:truth:i'tinmi . eourti':':' 27. "Examptes Of.frapd.aPOO.the 00 rt.melad�briborY,'evidemce:fabricot�on, and improper ahem ,ts to otluence.the:"court ti ; +eouiuset.'' $'' " $ 5 P y.... .. r�v�►n,. 2 P,2d at 1213. forged evidence=am item or:.iafarmatit►amonufactured or altered to support some agoo;Iis:Bot admissible in inuiuy coni., ng.U,S. Cri ninai. Cft 2014-00070:is.a.item Of Wforq*tion mauafact:md to.sO Port the agenda of the.city that.the City Ud.:cau .n.0 ito.ii sue a ca ie trf Qtcuponcy.On June ed - 3Q 2011: W;:4 Page 164 of 270 Page 164 of 270 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Exhibit,'? 01 DiSCIIS�. H.. ith ahovez th `: epii pint woii end ispiep rs wostIv-to-detafls of the first half of the . ialpt► �endan#reserves WA t .:.re e...a.. ..:. .il..a....t, e comp sun JIM. i.: �ipa .111 ia�r'; iiitE:a;:Tte" e >' : in 'Tim ::Tlus.D.+o u +iat f the p is ►lout is dot :Ap er tO'#h�;raffigla . t.. D€�'cument Ow. s eak to shoo as. 0:a��I�e Camp t'ta qu�te�y:suPport�ls mo#ia�, ' P.. er sp , lnt Th.. e:�s o�+�t mo�re:�t�:�i. : aita,:�.�::�!pub :�,: :...t�i;�ri Wb .:.:�c��e;tr�o�►es,.for,ward, x Tber is: lsp:auaimoivait,'.of.miutg ex €1Ps o.R'y i4nifbrma`tleA:regarding specifics of the camp�sitit this.D, ohs; � pnttide the, ; preten.c that the Agreen�mit�►asega �.t'+levan#to C' -� OIA07d.Th+ re is also many ossaciat aiir=inarati�► :'Aa�� s: 'ar s� soio►issan mc+n# at+r�xy i #ilex� e. Ugited Stotes .: Fraud upon,the�ourrt;. . 10 tlxc i�.ni�i#s��t�t��when Q i>Le�r of the cwj4 is found hxve.#raudui1P>a#iy pr sente fstr to.c6071 tit*e coin 3s'lm►paiftd in the imp>irHal•pe arr m nce u its.legal task;the act;kgown as "fraud up+�n the court'",:as n dunecemed s4 scye and t'�xndam�eutaU�:dppas #o thse opc #on of jusfice�t is no subject.to any.s#a. ate file ee- of 3'k+ p .-:..:.A:�uilgp k... uf�'ieer afth+�court,as well as a�ne.alt a#to�e�s:A�atatc judge is�state �.,jndiciatl'af�,co W" ►tie eta#+ to act mpar y mind: w lly.�i►fede I judge his a >Fedi:;uicial tiieer,paid by the federal gayanmei�t to.�c#impartiaIly and lawfully. P a9e 165.bf 27U, ...::....:::: :.. .:. >. ..:.page 165 of 270....:. .. .... ..:'.. . EXillblt State and i'ecleral aitu lw U uttq:the same gen rs�l;category.and,must meet the same requirements::A fudge 11s not:#fie court PeogI v aji 8$: .Ap"d 477 410 N.Eld 626 19 oncluMa For the.reasons above;:the Defendant resBect[ful r quests�tkiiat ft.court GRAN'the Defendant s Moti,:, DA"TED:. Thig 1211 day of.F aitva y, 2015.::.:.. Respectfully submitted; BY. . .. P o. .:e >fri ith L�xr . . ,.., . : ..:,. ,.. . .: gars► ,.. matte.. Scope.:.::::: :. CERTIFICATE.OF SER)(ICI . . . ... .. . : . .. .:..:.....:.. ..... . .:. .. .. :. This is to certify that a true:And y of the. Was l 40.delivered., this 120' day of Febaruary,,2o 115, Ran .. . . McC arty 121 North Rouse Bozeman,MT 597714 30 Atto arne or F .. Y � 1aandff` B,Y ......: : .. Page 166 of 270 Page Exhibit 8 Wayne Jennings Jennings Law Office, P.C. P.O. Box 1625 Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 582-1801 v�rtty.»e�jltiiil,�slawmt.coln Attorney for plaintiff IN `1'Hr EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GALLATIN COUNTY CKI"I'AIL,CREEK COMMUNITY ) �� ASSOCIATION, a Montana nonprofit ) corporation*, ) Cause No. DV-15-636CX ) Plaintiff, } AFFIDAVIT OF SANDRA RUMMEL PE,TER THOMPSON, ) Defendant, ) STATE OF MONTANA } :ss County of Gallatin ) Sandra Rummel,being first duly sworn upon her oath, deposes and states that: 1: I have been an owner of real property within Cattail Creek Subdivision,Bozeman,Gallatin County, Montana, since October of 2004. 2. In 2006-2007 1 was a member of the board of directors for Cattail Creek Community Association, Phase 1. 3. By 2006 it became evident to those of us participating in the management of the Cattail Creek Community Association that operating separate boards of directors for the three I Page 167 of 270 Page 167 of 270 Exhibit 8 phases within the subdivision was not in the best interests of the subdivision. 4. As a result, in 2006 a plan to consolidate the three phase associations into a single association was proposed to the membership of the three associations. 5. At that time a significant number of owners of lots within the subdivision resided outside Bozeman, Montana, including owners who lived out of state and, in at least one case;out of the country, so it was proposed that we conduct a mail ballot in an effort to get the largest number of direct participants in the election, 6, Ballots for the 2006 consolidation proposal were mailed out to all members of the association in an effort to obtain approval for the consolidation. 7. The vote for the 2006 proposal was overwhelmingly in favor of consolidating the boards,but we slid not obtain a sufficient number of votes to declare the resolution passed. 8. When we conducted the 2006 mail ballot we got no protests from any of the owners over the method of voting, before or after the voting took place. 9. After the failed resolution in 2006 we tried to craft a solution to the problem that involved operation of three boards, but again carve to the realization that three boards were unworkable. 10. In early JLily of2007 we again conducted a mail ballot to consolidate the three associations into a single entity. 11. As was the case the year before, ballots were sent out to all members of the association at that time. 12. Along with the ballots sent out to the owners in all three phases; a cover letter was also seat, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 1, 2 Page 168 of 270 Page 168 of 270 Exhibit 8 13. As stated in the cover letter,the process not only involved the mail ballots,but also involved a meeting at the Wingate Inn in Bozeman, Montana,just prior to the conclusion of voting. 14. The meeting at the Wingate lnn provided an opportunity for the members to discuss the ballot proposal. before the ballot due date and also afforded an opportunity for the rnenmbership to deliver their ballots at:that time if they desired. 15. In that 2007 vote at least 75% of the owners in each lipase cast ballots and at least 75% of the owners voted in favor of the proposition and it was considered approved. 16. When we conducted the 2007 mail ballot we got no protests from any of time owners over the method of voting, before or after the voting. 17. As stated in the July 1, 2007 cover letter, in January of2008, the owners were sent a mail ballet to arnend,the covenants for:the subdivision. 18. Those ballots to amend the covenants were sent out to:all 394 owners of record at the time and the affirmative votes of 296 remembers were needed.to approve the amended covenants. 19. Attached as I hibit 2 is a tree and correct copy of one of the ballots sent out to the owners. 20. All of the ballots sent to the owners were ideritieal to the ballot attached as .Exhibit 2 and each owner was to cast a vote and sign their ballot,as was done in the attached example. 2 t. As shown on the ballot,the by casting a vote,the owners were asked to waive the right to a meeting. 22. The ballots were counted at a board meeting on March 26, 2008 and a true and correct copy of the minutes for that meeting is attached as Exhibit 3. 23. As shown by the minutes.,of the votescast the owners were overwhelmingly in favor of the i i anlendment to the covenants and more than 75% voted:in favor of the amendment. 3 Page 169 of 270 Page 169 of 270 Exhibit 8 24. Following the counting of the ballots the amended.covenants were put in their final forna and signed by four board members, including the, although. not by the president of the association, 25. At the time of execution of the amended covenants, I was the secretary of the_association, although my acknowledgment did not state that fact. 26. When we conducted the mail ballot for the covenant amendment in 2008, we received no protests from any of the owners oven the method of voting.,before or after the noting. Dated this 2"day of December 2016, Sandra Rummel Subscribed and sworn to before me this�'�day of December 2016, by`Sandea Rummel. AMY HANSON 0NANg�, 7. 2 Notary f vt flC > . fc,r t+Yo state of Montane Notary Publ' for the State of Montana :. ,.S�• ��•. z: ac77-r•:.man, montana Print Name ,. y Hanson my convnission I=xpires:. November Residing at$ozeman,Montana 10,2Q78 My commission expires: November 10, 2018 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 5,2016,a true and correct copy of the foregoing Affidavit. of Sandra Rummel was e-mailed to defendant Peter Thompson, as per his request, as follows_ Mr. Peter Thompson thom son0089@msn.com Wayne Jett gs L-'' 4 Page 170 of 270 Page 170 of 270 Exhibit 8 Cattail Creek HntnebWh6r's Association PO Bost 1254 Bozeman;iVi'. 5977°14254 du:1y 1, 110.7 Dear Fellow Owners: As many of you know,:there was.an.unsuccessful atte iApt°:iin Jttly 2006 to corribine all.three phases of the cattait Creek.Homeow 1.10.A006010n::boards into vne association. $..ipCe thee, the three volunteer boards of directors have.attempted to lay the foundation for:the.three separate HOA's. Unfortunately, there have be- �raatiy atttmbi rig b!04s o this:process:.: There.has:been massive duplication in setting things up Miiny'oftlte vendors and.sorvr a contractors we will need to.de;il with are.not willing to world with three different associations,, bi1Jih,g each.H0A. for thole _spectivo poi tion.s'Under the same contract. We also:-feel.that by cotnbyriirig tli�three:bliases.into one HOA,the yearly dues cafe be kept to a minimum. These issues among.°others,have:.br.oggl.t:the:boards and die.-:devclgper Nok to.;you., to ask you to please reconsider the'issue uf cpm.joi Zg.the tliree. :phases and :assoclatiot s.into one association, and making minor revisions to the covenant:ddcumerits:by combining their Into,one doculiteiit which 'applies to all pli 3ses, Last ye 's vote wars ahtic�st.unan i vas in.favor; the•only.teason the:vote,did not pass was that. the required peicOtt of hoiiieow.hets°in each phase dlcl iidt':tespood.. If:.Mo of file owners in each phase had responded,: the vote would have passed. This rnade:sense: last year, and after struggling with the problems and 1:,isuus this year;it makes oven more sense now. The covenant document:.ektangcswlll be kepi specifically to a.niinimum The only Ganges that will need. s to be-made relate..to.the Design Review.l'e-Us(6av-1[jg ti.to safyxe,foe!for all design reviews in Cattail Creek) and ohanging the :number of-tile'.board: of directors. proposed copy cif the revised documents is available'fbr. y(AW: revio* you MY .contact. Sanzl ':Ituipgte (58C-4 26) .or.Allison .at lnstrisil<, 111 1✓ Tracy, 5.82-8933 for a copy of the documents. These.changes, concerns or questions you have, and any issues for the upoom tig year will:bo addressed at a meeting,to be held on August 7, 2007 at 7:00 pm at the Wingate:linn, This will also give:.you aft-oppoittolity.to meet the current volunteer boards of directors. Please. do not Hesitate to +-ontact.us with. 411 cliiestion$.. .Ballots may be returned In the enclosed self addressed,stamped envelope and m* 60 be received.too:later thati August 15.Your ballot may be turned in at.the meeting o. Att94st I at the Wingate Tnn.. if we do tiot.i'eaeive your ballot:before August 7 or at the meeting, we will Ke coniacting.you. On-August 15,the eureib ors:i iwill count the ballots. Thank you for your.pxampt response.to;this matter; While:things are moving along in Cattail Creek, everyone has.an active.part in us`660omi ig a camtnuri ty: Jayrnie Hatier. 58$4885: Mark;Ni6mi 556-4694 .Lola.Jeffers. 624-6024 Sandi Hamilton 580-4364 Saudi Rummel 586-4426. pan Madison 580-4451 Sonny Greer 581-1312 Justin Tribitt 539-1062 r Page 171 of 270 19 Exhibit 8 CATTAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION,PHASES 1,2,and 3 BALLOT APPROVING AMENDED AND RESTATED COVENANTS and APPROVING _ ^BYLAWS for CATTAIL CREEK COMMUNITY-ASSOCIATIO N and U ES�GN REVIEW REGULATIONS for CATTAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASES 1,2 ag.d3,,,__ Information.: As of August 3:1,. ?(}t?7;_.Cattail Creek Subdivision Phases 1, ? and 3 all voted to consolidate the Covenants, including Design Regulatlorm,. Bylaws and the Cattail.Creek Community Associations with the approval of the consolidation actions of 7.5%, which was required by eacti Phase covenants. This ballot approves the amended covenants,amended design regulations and the amended-bylaws. BAt,LOT OUESTIQN; A. Vote to approve the Airsended and:Restated Crovenants for Cattail Creek Phases 1, 2 and 3: Design Review Regulations Phases 1,2 and 3 and Bylaws for the Cattail Creek Community Association Phases 1;2,.3, This is a proxy vote and waiver of attendOnce at the meeting, This vote shall be counted at the special meeting called by the Board of Directors and shall be held on March'26,2008'at 630 p.m, at Borders Book Store, Bozeman,Montana. JAYMIE HAVER&JEREMY LARSEN 2845 N.27TH AVE 94 BOZEMAN,MT 59718-7192 Property Address 3139 PEN WAY#C BOZEMAN,MT "niI i,,- Plop rt Owner ror Against Property Owner For Against Page 172 of 270e IL Exhibit S EXHIBIT Oattail 1loine{7wnoi Association .- d Board Meeting March 26,20g8 Prpsident,lols leftom- called`tlte.special board.rMeetang to order at 61.i.5 pto Roll-call was taken. Board momb s.Lola Jeffees;Saudi Ruin riel,Justin]tibia,Jeremy May,and J'ayrriie Mauer were present; Sandi Hamilton and Dan Madison were absent. Secretary,Saudi--Rummel lead sent ou the minutes from the March.l board meeting Austin moved that�the trinutes.from-the board meeting be accepted as presented,and Jeremy seconded. Motion carried. Treavarer's.Repnrt Sandi R presented the treasurer'.s.`repgrt she received from Sandi H. The report showed there is currently $5009 70 the checking account,and$.38,525.53 for a total of$43,535.53 in ftit7ds. Past due.lettcr.s.ivcre s ht.osit for tiie$27.823. St}pax dues that are stall outstanding fi-oin 2006,2007 and°tlie.first balff.of 20.08. Outstandi g dues i�inaiti at the amount of$27,823 5.0,and past due letters have.been sent out,. There As VIj589:99 in dues that will:be dice:on July 1: Sandi R moved to accept the treasurer's reptirt;as:preserited,aifcl Justin. onded; Motii3n.Wtied, There was note on the treasurer's report about.needing,to get the taxes.done for 2007. Previously, Sandan has.wed Holrq &.Turner. Discussion took place.and Jaymie states!that.t should not be a very complicated.return. During2007,there was wmixture of funds.between Sandan and the association while the assnciatioii.lieing}iu€into p ace, :andl.ilt:rnotionetl that Ho.lm,es a Turttei�.do the return for 2007 and uteri.nest year'`s returin a..ati be put out fur bids,if desrred. Justine seconded and the rn6tion carried, Jayinie did ask that.she would lire to knowhowv much the charge wou:ld:be to prepare the return. Sandi R also presented bills and after review,Justin motioned.that the bills be paid. Jaymie seconded, motion carried. Balloi.Cou►tt-Sandi 14 gave the ballots to Sandi Rand the ballots were:counted at the meeting.. A total of 294 votes wt�re nc�eo to reael 7S%9,and 297 had:.been received as of March 2.2, Additional votes were presented at the meeting: Tlie total of votes'atter:tally.-Ing was 314,_with-10 against the.proposed documents and 294 for the revised d zounwas as presented. Jeremy-move i that the vote be accepted, Sandi R seconded: Motion carried: Website The coy tract.w th Big.Sky Ir�ternot Assign was.recirived�and'was signed by,Lola; The signed contract with the deposit will be forwarded to Big Sky Inteme't.Design and work will be started. Pirrk.Cletr►tt[, - Glean:ip Ofrks'i?vi.11 € ke place 6itApkil>26.. ,LoIa.-has contacted the city but has not received a call.back yet:. l�l�ers will be printedarld ptit up by Aprtl 1.9:to notify residents in the area of the clean up:. We will rri:ret at th'a basike€ball court,and go.forward;at that point. Lola will see about getting dumpsters from the.city. *Nate=Due to the we kheri flyers were.put iip After 40ril 1.9. With.the snow on April 25,c1dan up did not take place and will.be re�schedihled. Park Maintenance-A bid:ftotn-.Oui;door Maintenance Service;Ind, received by Sandi l-l. OMS performed tlhe giaintConed.On the parr during the. uiitmdr Arid plowing of the sidewalks during the winter. Several board members know ether companies that might be:interested in.providing these serviees,as there were some issues: kh:the service on the.park:last summer. JuStio volun€eered to contact Rob fQr a map o.f the..pt rk showing the areas to be::m Wed. .Board members will contact_tlie companies and aslC foi•bids on the service for the park. ;As the$et•vice.:needs.lo.got in:place soon,so.that gopher pr oblem can.bo:started air; fY-0(lei3idetl diet -ida w0ld.h6ed to be re..erved by April 4 and then voting to take place.via e-mail, *Note- On April 17, Sandi eiri4il6d.the board;and;. roposetl,.:as a u�ap lhad not yet been secured,.that the bid for the park maintenance be awarded:to.0 S:since:they.:were familiar with the park. Justin, Lola, and Sandi li responded and voted.ye . "t1V#Ili tbur votes but of seven;the bid ryas awarded to OMS. Page 173 of 270 Page 173 of 270 Exhibit 8 Other- - With all association management turned over to Peak Property, it was suggested that Lola receive a copy of the bank statements each month to verify the money in the accounts. -Jayinie brought up the question of whether Ton? Anacker ever was paid fbr the services lie gave the board when the thi-ce pleases first started working on becoming associations. No bill was ever turned in by Sonny, so at this point no further action will be taken. With no other business to address, Justin moved to adjourn the meeting, Jaymie seconded. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Sandi Rummel Page 174 of 270 Page 174 of 270 Exhibit 9 Bozeman Police' Department e ZEM Report of Investigation Date: 5/26/15 Case Number: 2015000604 Reporting Officer: Mark Carpenter Subject: 2988 Blackbird On Tuesday May 26th I was asked by my supervisor Captain Veltkamp to start an investigation to see If Peter Thompson and his family were living at 2988 Blackbird Dr illegally and if he was, I was to issue a citation for occupying a residence without a certificate of occupancy. I went by the residence with Officer Gappmayer on Wednesday afternoon the 27m of May. We knocked on the front door waiting for someone to answer.There were 2 vehicles in the driveway. I noticed flowers in the upstairs window sill and also a kid's bike on the front porch so I thought someone would be there. After a few minutes of waiting, no one answered the door so I left my business card on the front door to call me at my office number. The next day I received an email from Peter Thompson mentioning that his wife found my card in the front door and that it was distressing to his family that I would show up unannounced. He asked that any further contact with him be through email or calling him on 1 of 2 phone numbers he provided me. He also mentioned that if I had papers that needed to be given to him, he said he would accept service at a place of my choosing, to just send him an email and he would come and pick them up. On 5/29/151 told Peter I would have paperwork for him at the downtown police station,to just let me know what time he could be there. He emailed back on the 291h and said he could meet Saturday and wanted to know the nature and topic of the paperwork. I answered right back on the 29`h and told him I was not in on the weekends, only M-F 8-5 and that it was a citation He wrote right back and thanked me for the note, and wanted to know what the citation was for. He said he was in Wyoming during the week and asked if I could scan and email him the citation or mail it to his home address at 2988 Blackbird Dr. My response to him was that it was a citation on behalf of the building department and that I needed to give it to him in person. He responded right back saying he would get in touch with me when he had time during the week. Page 175 of 270 Exhibit 9 ; Page 1 of 4 Page 175 of 270 Exhibit 9 On Tuesday June 21" 1 cm ailed Peter back because I had not heard from him and asked when he could come in and get this paperwork done. Peter replied to me on Wednesday the 3rd and reminded me he worked out of town and if I wanted to meet him during the week I could do it where he worked. I decided to call Peter at the number he gave me and told him I apologized for being confused about his meeting me during the week. I told him it was a citation for living in the house without a certificate of occupancy, He said OK can you scan it to me, I said I would find out but asked him if I sent it certified and restricted delivery so I would know that he got it. He said he was not going to waste time at the Post office to sign for a letter from us. He asked if would mail it regular mail, he would scan it and let me know he received it when he got back in town. I contacted Bob Risk to make sure that there still was not a COO and want to go talk to neighbors, The first neighbor I talked to was Brenda Craig who lives at 2962 Blackbird Ln. I told her why I was there and asked her if she had any doubt at all in her mind that the Thompson's were living at 2988 Blackbird Ln. She told me she absolutely had no doubt. She said Mrs.Thompson comes over when they are outside and chats about her kids and other things. Mrs. Craig mentioned that she sees Mrs. Thompson come and go from the property all the time,walk the dog a couple times a day. She also mentioned that the Thompsons 2 kids catch the School bus out front of the house. Brenda also said that Mrs.Thompson has talked to her about them living in the basement and wanting to rent out the upstairs of the home. She mentioned that she didn't think that was possible because it is not zoned for multi family living. She mentioned that the Thompsons house had multiple power meters on it, I asked if I could go into her yard so I could see them, she took me into her back yard and I snapped a couple photos of the multiple power meters and the 2 gas meters. Brenda also mentioned that living next to her was Randy Sullivan who is the Design and Review Liaison for the Cattail subdivision. So I went to his place which is at 2944 Blackbird Ln. He answered the door, I introduced myself,told him why I was there and asked Randy if he had any doubt at all that the Thompsons were living at the address in question. He said no and that the Thompsons have been living there since he moved in to his place, Randy mentioned he might still have some correspondence that he had with the City in the past and that he would email it if he found it. Around 1:30pm on the St"of June, I did receive an email from Randy that he originally sent to Paula Frojae who at the time worked for the building and planning division. It mentioned to her that in January of 2014 the Thompsons were living in their home. I received an email from Bob Risk around 4:20 on the 5th. He said yes occupancy was still an issue and that it was in the city attorney's hands and that building department was not working on the case at all. My report is complete. Mark Carpenter 6/10/15 Page 176 of 270 Exhibit 9 : Page 2 of 4 Page 176 of 270 Exhibit 9 Page 177 of 270 Exhibit 9 ; Page 3 of 4 Page 177 of 270 Exhibit 9 CAOEfOER-16 lo PIMA 6 wil 6*Nat_6�.2_989 ird.L �4#0[6 pitibilityModg)-woid nfO CARP E NTE R-Investi qat.lon Notes- 298-8..Black..JrOtn DoOnhentS-POW.-UWzemanMunic.ipal.a CitatiiahK4415th a CayDisob4i,'Pis Compatibility.Mode W 1. vmions 6f bffice;Convert m5fs'k will enablei th m. feo s-bi.xin Et ei.sul(ift Convert ing 0,i Size i25K6 Paues 3 Idy.UL(114119t;4. L Words 1039'. 7otal1diting Time 14.Minutes Protect Document Add tKie Th S Add to Confiol what types of change:*P�—pie can make is this do umek o plotect Comments, AWCOornenu: Document Related 04 Wk ioi6diied' 61'1)26151�47 AM Inspkt Document created IV W26 5 9:44 AM Wait publishing this filk*bei;vsr6that,lt*t'l.i*ntain-r, Check fat 1: Document properties and author's name Issues Custam XML data "lated-Pe9ple 0 C.Ilrit-nf.Ih;0 r-Anmit Irw ch,rkM 6ir ik§itk heir-Ann*- F WA rite type A mcarpenier, Add L.n author Ver.s.ions -By Uere aie Ila pre�iaus.veriians difi�.�O meat enter 1 Versions Page 178 of 2-10 Exhibit 9 Page 4 of 4 Page 178 of 270 ro LAUD "' © qQ ❑ r: rnCJf1 0 �-mrrt � was o v cD S. ev r6 & �a tos in : Y<= of m CD 4 m C.?.�, re p v, � 0 � rr 0 trs c � ago F- �, m 2 ' b > . : a Q Cc-; tic ' mrooi" q m � -C ?P � to � i-` '!3 ; � ro m m Gl ro .r > fTV. :tn w °CT C: t a aa� Z O a z n � p 71t t'd z a m p zooi n > tz n s Cl ztil 1 o z 2; o m b r>- Mom.. N O ppZ r�� NK I � Z �U "j Ko � d 0 qcb C� z y C1CJ no l n� � � _ r � rl > Im 00 CT) c n D CKET C® v z NUMBER w m � P90FOAMA fNFOSYSTfMS 4a0.860,3440 FORM i f011 VIP i v 0 Exhibit 11 Calls For Service Report Call ID: 2015000604 Printed: November 3, 2015 1.Agency 2. Person Received 3. Date/Time Received 5. Time Arrived 7. Case# BPD Complaint 06/10/2015 10:38 Carpenter,Mark Alan 4.Time Dispatched 6.Time Complete 10:38 8. Nature Of Incident Nuisance Property 9. Location Of Incident 2988 BLACKBIRD DR,BOZEMAN MT CITY ATTORNEY 10. Victim or Caller 2988 BLACKBIRD DR,BOZEMAN 11. Classification 12. How Received 13. Disposition 14. Officer 15. Date Submitted GENERAL POLICE PHONE FOLLOW UP Carpenter,Mark Alan 06/10/2015 Notes: 198 5/26/15 All info in working folder R Cft6e 180 of 270 Page 180 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 PETER T140MPS0N 2988 Blackbird Drive Bozeman, Montana, 59718 406-570-0268 thompson0089@msn.com Pro Se With Limited Scope Representation IN THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GALLATIN COUNTY Cause No. DV-15-636C CATTAIL CREEK C0MMUNITY ASSOCIATION,a Montana nonprofit corporation ALLEGATIONS OF FACT AND Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT -vs- OF PETER THOMPSON PETER T14OMPSON, Defendant. Cattail Creek Comn-lunity Association, here after as HOA. 1. The water course within the combined areas of Phase 1 thru III of the Cattail Creek area contains 4.6 acres of registered wetlands. 2. Pre application plat of Cattail Creek Phase 11 describes the area as R3 zoning. See Exhibit F. 3. The City of Bozeman amended their zoning map for the Cattail Creek Phase 11 area, wherein Peter Thompson owns property which is a subject of this dispute, April 14th of 2003. City's zone map amendment calls out the area of the Thompson residence on Blackbird Drive as "RT'. See Exhibit G. 4. In 2008, the City of Bozeman's planning department policy, as stated by City planning de- partment workers to public users of the plat room,was that all positive zoning verification is done in the zoning trap amendment drawer. Page 181 of 270 Page 181 of 270 i Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 5. In 2010 City of Bozeman employee, Bill Stetzner, stated positive zoning verification was still done in the zoning map amendment drawer and that they were, "always" finding errors needing correction in the GIS zoning map of the City's at this time. 6. At some point in time between 2011 and March 26th of 2012, the City of Bozeman Plan- ning Department changed their stated policy to public users of the plat room about how positive zoning verification was done. In this time bracket, the City Planning Department set up a GIS zoning map station within the plan room. With a new policy of this time period that public user positive zoning verification was now done at the GIS station in the plan room. This in the same room where the zoning map amendment drawer is. 7. At a time approximately between 2011 and March 26th of 2012, City Planner Dave Skel- ton, directed City employee, Bill Stetzner to make hand drawn amendments to the Cattail Creek Phase 11 zoning map amendment document within the zoning trap amendment drawer. Mr. Stetzner made hand noted corrections to the zoning snap amendment document, renaming the former "R2" area where the Thompson residence is as "R1 - Per Ord. 1593". Several other area zoning call outs were similarly changed. There was no mark up or change of the R3 zoning ref- erence on this zoning map document. The original document is attached as Exhibit G. The hand altered document is attached as Exhibit H. 8. Exhibit H I shows the altered Cattail Creek zoning map amendment with Ordinance 1593 attached. 9. Exhibit H I with ordinance 1593 attached gives the reader the impression that Ordinance 1593 is the basis of authority upon which the hand noted alterations of the Cattail Creek zoning map amendment are based. 10. Ordinance 1593, dated April 14, 2003 provides amended zoning for the Cattail Creek Phase 11 area. See Exhibit H2. Page 182 of 270 Page 182 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 11. Ordinance 1593 (Exhibit H2) is not a document that provides authorization of hand note amendments (described in paragraphs 7 thru 9 above)to the Cattail Creek Phase 11 zoning map amendment plat, as implied by Exhibit H 1, 12. Ordinance 1593 (Exhibit 142) is not a document that communicates to the approving sign- ers, that this document is capable of allowing Sandan LLC, to in fact plat and develop 42, one quarter acre low density lots which restricted allowable uses to only that of single family use in an area fonnerly zoned R3 Medium density. 13. Attached Exhibit J is a copy of the Phase I Plat of record. Exhibits F, G, H, and J were all prepared by TD&H Engineering for Sandan LLC as part of a continuous phased development plan, in close working timelines to each other. 14. Exhibits F and J similarly make clear statements relative to the zoning callouts pertinent to the respective documents. Exhibit K is the TD&H plat for Cattail Creek Phase 11, as pre- pared for Sandan LLC. 15. The Phase TT plat(Exhibit K) differs from Exhibits F and J which do make clear state- ments relative to zoning call outs on the plats. 16. The Phase TT plat (Exhibit K)provides no information of what the zoning may be for any of the lots depicted. Nor does the document have any information regarding what the allowable uses of the individual lots are. 17. The Phase 11 plat(Exhibit L) signatory cover sheet,provides no information of what the zoning may be for any of the lots depicted. Nor does the document have any information re- garding what the allowable uses of the individual lots are. i I 18, Assistant City Attorney, Tim Cooper approved both Exhibits K and L as to form of the documents. Page 183 of 270 Page 183 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 19. The owners of Lot 3 Block 9 and or their realtor conclude and or understood the lot that they had purchased and owned to be, "R2 -Two Household Medium Density" zoned. in Janu- ary of 2009, Lot 3 of Block 9 was advertised (Exhibit M) for sale as R2 - Two Household Me- dium Density. The Thompson residence is on the same street and block a little farther to the south. 20. Exhibit N is an excerpt from the Cattail Creek Phase II covenants (doe. No.2131569), filed on the same day as Exhibit K (Cattail Creek Phase II plat - as discussed in paragraph 14 thru 18 above). Exhibit N describes the Thompson property of lot 7 block 9 as follows: Front Side Rear Fronting Yard Yard Yard Block Lot 0 Street Zone Setback Setback Setback Notes 9 1 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 1,3 2 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 3 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' 3 4 Blackbird Drive R_2 20' S' 20' 3 5 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 6 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 7 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 Cl lint 21. Page 40 of the Cattail Creek Phase II covenants (doe. No. 2131569) provides the follow- ing general note: General Notes: - All zoning designations and setbacks are listed for,general reference, Current city of Bozeman Codes and 4,Tdinances, at the time of development, take precedent. 22. Rob Pertzborn of Intrinsik Archtecture, while acting as the HOA's agent conducting design review, explained the general note (paragraph 21) above to Peter Thompson, as being applicable to Exhibit N above and the body of the Cattail Creek Phase 11 covenent contract (doe. No. 2131569). Page 184 of 270 Page 184 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 23.The general note of paragraph N above is applicable to the entirety of Cattail Creek Phase IT Covenant contract no. 2131569. 24. Tntrinsik Architecture, while representing the HOA, provided Peter Thompson, on January 14th,2008, a spreadsheet of setback and zoning designations by lot which was explained as an update and a document that supersceds the lot table in the back of the original Phase TT covenants (Paragraph 20 above). The spread sheet provided a range of changes in zoning decriptions. 25. Rob Pertzborn of Tntrinsik Archtecture,while acting as the HOA's agent(in or about January of 2008), explained to Peter Thompson that Tntrinsik Archtecture was prepareing new covenants that would change zoning call outs of Exhibit N (paragraph 20) above. At this time Rob Pertzborn stated that the draft covenants his firm was preparing had not yet been voted on or approved by the HOA. 26. On January 15, 2008,Allison Gilley of Tntrinsik Architecture requested a meeting with Rob Pertzborn and Susan Kozub (both of Tntrinsik Architecture),to disuss incorrect information out there regarding the Cattail Creek covenants. 27. On information and belief,Peter Thompson, alleges that Susan Kozub did formally work for the City of Bozeman Planning department and that Susan Kozub did participate in the City of Bozeman's adminstration of the City's review and approval of Cattail Creek subdivision. in 2008 Susan Kozub was receiving employment from Tntrinsik Archtecture. 28. In a January 15, 2008 email to Allison Gilley of Tntrinsik Archtecture, Peter Thompson made the following statement, "My feeling is that there are current owners of lots on block 9 that feel their lots are R-2. T think this is an issue that needs further attention from the home owners association and also from the city planning department.". On this same day, Peter Thompson made the following statement in a email to Rob Pertzborn of Tntrinsik Page 185 of 270 Page 185 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 Architecture,"...a person should be able to go down to the clerk and recorders office and learn what kind of land a particular lot is. 1 also feel that some how it is the responsibilty of the planning department and who ever first establishes the covenants to be certain the documents of record are reasonably correct...Rest assured, i am on Dave Skelton's schedule for tommorow and will be certain to let him know how i feel." 29. About mid year of 2010, Dave Skelton stated to Peter Thompson that he had written them about them needing to correct mistakes or errors in the documents at the Court house. At this tirne the topic with Dave Skelton was the Cattail Creek Phase 11 documents describing most of the lots as R2 zoning. 1n this discussion with Dave Skelton, Peter Thompson and Mr. Skelton did also dissucss a document the City had recently provided to Peter Thompson which stated the City had used eminent dornain to change the zoning descriptions of the Cattail Creek area from R2 to R 1. At this time Dave Skelton did offer to provide a copy of the letter that he wrote them, regarding corrections needed at the Court House, Mr. Skelton offerd this for a fee, Peter Thompson declined. 30. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Rob Pertzborn and Allison Gilley of lntrinsik Archtecture did receive legal advise from Wittich Law Firm, regarding the incorrect information about Cattail Creek Covenants described in paragraph 26 above. 31. Peter Thompson did purchase Lot 7 of Block 9, within Cattail Creek Phase 11, from Richard Embry. Cade Embry had previously MLS listed this lot for sale with zoning described as "Other, Res", see Exhibit O. Richard Embry was included in the email communications described in paragraph 28 above. 32. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Richard Embry did receive legal advice from Wittich Law Firm, regarding the incorrect information about Cattail Creek Covenants described in paragraph 26 above. Page 186 of 270 Page 186 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 1.2 33. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Mr. Arthur Wittich has a long running friendship with Mr. Brad Stratton (owner of American Land Title Company) and that Mr. Wittich and Mr. Stratton do have contact thru their respective work on a professional level. 34. Peter Thompson, about a month prior (per paragraphs 22 thru 28 above) to closing on property witlliri Cattail Creek Phase 11 on February 27, 2008, provided notice to Richard Embry(seller of the lot),persons in control of(HOA's agent) and or having access to documents of record at both the Court house and the zoning wrap amrnendement plat files (City planning department workers), that Peter Thompson intended to rely on these documents of record in a upcoming r•eafestate transaction, Peter Thompson, did near to closing on February 27, 2008 visit both the County Court house and the zoning map amrnendment files in the City plan room. No changes, notes or any ammendments were evident at either location just prior to closing. Peter Thompson then attended closing on the 27th of February, 2008 with the understanding that a faction of the local HOA was well along the path of trying to get property owners to vote on approval of significant changes to their covenant contract, but voting nor the voting meeting to approve changes had yet occurred. 35. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that, John Doe(s) and or Jane Doe(s) of the HOA and or their agents and or Richard Ernbry and or his agent, communicted with John Doe(s) and or Jane Doe(s) of American Land Title Company regarding the incorrect information described in paragraph 26 above and that as a result the Covenant Contract of record at the tirne of closeing (Cattail Creek Phase 1i - doc. No. 2131569) was withheld from the closing transaction, conducted by and at American Land Title Company on February 27th, 2008. This realestate closing transaction between the Seller (Richard Embry) and the purchaser (Peter Thompson), 36. Peter Thompson did not receive or sign any covenants during the land transaction Page 187 of 270 Page 187 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 descibed in paragraph 35 above. 37. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that American Land Title Company had a purpose and or need to later represent that covenants of record had been presented to the purchaser, Peter Thompson, at the closing described in paragraph 34 and 35 above. 38. Documents manufactured by American Land Title Company (as obtained by Peter Thompson about 2013) represent by way of notorized attachement of document no. 2300076, that the revised and restated covenant contract (of May 15, 2008) was a part of and or presented at the land closing of February 27, 2008(Paragraph 34 and 35). When in fact Document no. 2300076 (this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Count) did not exist until May 15th, 2008, a point in time well after Peter Thompson's closing transaction (per paragraph 35) on property within the HOA. ALTC documents presented at closing had deleted \ missing pages that accurately depicted the type of structure to be built and were also did not include the appraisal report stating that zoning was by restric- tive covenant. 39. The closing document package described in paragraph 38 above, which included notarized attachment of the revised and restated covenants Document no. 2300076 (this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court, created on May l 5th, 2008) bares a date out, stamped date of March 18th, 2008, a point in time before the existence of doc- ument of record no. 2300076. 40. it is most common that covenants of record be presented at closing by the seller and signed by the purchaser at closing of a real-estate transaction and although this may not be a le- gal requirement under the Montana Code, it would be a requirement of standard business prac- tice for most all companies who are routinely involved in such transactions. 41. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that John Doe(s) and or Jane Doe(s) Page 188 of 270 Page 188 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 of American Land Title Company transmitted the document package described in paragraphs 38 and 39 above to the Lender of the purchaser and or to the Title insurance company who issued the actual title insurance policy and or others. 42. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that John Doe(s) and or Jane Doe(s) of American Land Title Company transmitted the document package described in paragraphs 38 and 39 above with no less than one ulterior motive; to fulfill a requirement of entities (para- graph 41), that such closing packages as received from a closing conducted by a Title insurance company, are expected to include documentation that covenants of record were presented and accepted at closing and or that proposed to be built structure, included in the title insured clos- ing amount,be complaint with applicable restrictive covenants. 43. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that John Doe(s)and or Jane Doe(s) of American Land Title Company transmitted the document package described in paragraphs 38 and 39 via the US Postal Service and or that other documents were differently manufactured that did not include any indication that the revised and amended covenants were a part of the February 27, 2008 closing and that this different set of documents were mailed via the US Postal service to Peter Thompson. 44. On information and belief,Peter Thompson alleges that American Land Title Company has at least a dozen or so title insured interests within Cattail Creek Phase li that could be af- fected by incorrect information as described in paragraph 26 above. This if it is determined that any encumbrance of title(the original or the revised covenant contracts)is tainted by mistake and or fraud. 45. Between 2004 and 2008, Sandan LLC attracted a range of people who purchased within Cattail Creek Phase IT. These people understanding they were purchasing quarter acre low den- sity single family lots and or built out structures on the lots. Page 189 of 270 Page 189 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 46. in this same time period (paragraph 45 above)there is another range of people that were attracted to purchase within Cattail Creek Phase 11, who believed they were purchasing to hold and or build on and or resell lots which the purchasers and or sellers believed were R2 -Two Household medium density lots. See Exhibit M. 47. On October 22, 2001, the City of Bozeman adopted the 2020 Community Plan. See Ex- hibit P. 48. Development activities within Cattail Creek Phase Il are required to comport with the City's adopted 2020 Community Plan of paragraph 47 above. 49. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that the 2020 Community plan pro- hibits the development of one quarter acre low density lots which are restricted to single family only use in areas not zoned Residential Suburban. 50. In Explanation of paragraph 49 above, approval of 40 or more quarter acre low density single family only lots in any area previously or currently zoned as R3 medium density and or R2 medium density under the 2020 plan,would require variance and or amendment of the 2020 community plan. 51. Commission Resolution No. 3630(Exhibit Q), adopted and passed on September 22, 2003 established various strategies of affordable housing. 52, Excerpts from Commission Resolution No. 3630 as follows: Page 190 of 270 Page 190 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 Strategy Il. Regulatory and Process Reforms 1. Major site plans with no deviations can be approved by City planning staff. Strategy lll, Restricted Size Lots(RSL) $ Restricted Size Units(RSU) 1. As stated in the 2020 Plan, every residential annexation into the City of Bozeman of five acres or more, that is not zoned as Residential Suburban shall have s minimum net acreage density of 8-8 units when subdivided. 2. Fvery residential annexation of five acres or more that is not zoned as Residential Suburban shall have a minimum of 10% of the buildable net acreage dedicated to Restricted Size Lots(RSL)that are 4,006 to not greater than 5,000 square feet for single fmrdfy household detached(6FD SHD)and 2; -to 3,000 for single family household attached (ASF SHA) units when subdivided. The RSL a designation shall be recorded with on the final subdivision plat. 53. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Subdivisions platted and ap- proved after the adoption of Commission Resolution No. 3630 on September 22nd 2003 were required to comport with the requirements of the Resolution. 54. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Cattail Creek Phase 11 plat ap- proval was subject to the requirements of Resolution No. 3630 and that the approved plat, Ex- hibits K and L(the Cattail Creek Phase 11 plat of November I i th 2003) does not comport with the specific requirements of Resolution 3630 seen in paragraph 52 above. 55. Public Notice and subsequent Zoning Commission and Planning Board review of Ordi- nance 1604 was completed on August l 2th 2003. The City commission held three separate public comment meetings in September of 2003 to take public comment of proposed Ordinance 1604. On first reading the City Commission passed ordinance 1604 on November 1 Oth of 2003 with a targeted effective date of January 1 st 2004. 56. Ordinance 1604 changed the previously confusing zoning definitions, such as R2 Medium density allowing for small sized single family lots to R2 post Ordinance 1604 meaning Two Household Medium density zoning. 57. The Cattail Creek Phase 11 zoning map amendment plat (Exhibit G), upon which positive Page 191 of 270 Page 191 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 zoning verification by public users of the City Plan room depended on between 2004 and some time prior to the City's implementation of the GIS station method about 2011/2012 called out zoning consistent with terms of ordinance 1604 meaning R2 - Two Household use as follows: BOUNDARY CONTAINS 21 .0-9 ACRES CIO 58. R2 Two Household use is consistent with the pre approval plat zoning(Exhibit F)of R3 for the same area as follows: q$ o- � a 59. R2 Two Household medium density dwelling in this area is also consistent with the 2020 community growth plan. 60. Mid summer of 2008, Peter Thompson went to the US Post Office on Baxter Lane and Page 192 of 270 Page 192 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 spoke with Jane Doe. Requesting Mrs. Doe issue a second street addresses for Lot 7 of Block 9 within Cattail Creek Phase 11. Mrs. Doe advised she could not issue the street adress based on the covenant doc. 2131569 as requested, addresses would need to be issued by the City. Peter Thompson went to the City Planning Department and asked Tara Hastie about getting street adresses. Mrs. Hastie located the Thompson property on the wall map across from her counter and explained the property was in the donut district and street addresses would need to be issued by the County. Peter Thompson went to the County GIS office and met with Allan Armstrong. Tnturupting Mr. Armstrongs brown bag lunch, Peter Thompson explained his visit to the Post office and the City planning departments referral to his office. After understanding where the property in question was, Mr.Armstrong explained that the address should be issued by the City,but as it sounded like you have been getting the run around he could help out and issue the 2nd address. Mr.Armstrong requested and received a copy of the site plan showing where both doors would be, reviewed a copy of the covenant doc.No. 2131569's table describing the lot as R2 and then stated that he would contact the City(Bill Stetzner) to confirm that the City zoning allowed for a 2nd street address and to come back in a hour or two. Later this day, Mr. Armstrong issued the second street address of 2990 Blackbird Drive and wrote the number down on a scrap of paper. Later this day, Mrs. Doe of the US Post office stated a number on a scrap of paper was not going to fly with her, she had Allan's number and called him, getting confirmation that he had issued the 2nd street address. Mrs. Doe than went on about how expensive the group mail box pedestals were and that 1 might have to pay for more if there was not enough room in the area boxes to allow for a second street address as requested, Mrs Doe would send her keying person out there to check things out. Page 193 of 270 Page 193 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 Later it was asscertained by the keying person that there was plenty of room and boxes were set up with keys issued to Peter Thompson for 2990 Blackbird Drive and 2988 Blackbird Drive. s 2990 , �: 61. In or about December of 2009, Peter Thompson met with City of Bozeman plan's examiner Tim McGough. One of the topics discussed at this time was how Peter Thompson could complete the lower area of 2988 Blackbird Drive, so as the lower area scope of work,when completed, would be in compliance with City's minimum standards for issuance of a Certificate of Occupation. Occupants and sleeping areas were discussed amongst other details pertinent to the City's minimum requirements for occupancy. Peter Thompson and Plans examiner Tim McGough,near the close of this preliminary meeting did request supervisory input from the Chief Building official Bob Risk.After a summary briefing of details discussed between Plans Examiner Tim McGough and Peter Thompson, Bob Risk was asked for any comments 1 input regarding any issues he might have in permitting the proposed scope of work. Mr. Risk declined to make any specific comment and then did direct,Peter Thompson to submit the final plan in writing in the form of a Building Permit application. 62. The City of Bozeman issued Building Permit no 10-10130 to Peter Thompson on February 9, 2010. Building Permit no 10-10130 was for the scope of work discussed with City plans examiner and Chief Building official Bob Risk,per paragraph 61 above. Page 194 of 270 Page 194 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 63. Construction authorized under Building Permit no 10-10 130 was based on plans for the lower areas of the substantially complete building shell at 2988 Blackbird drive. At this time, most all exterior finishes of the upper building area were complete, less a few exterior decks; this upper area work being conducted under building permit number 08-7435. The City had demanded Peter Thompson acquire a separate building permit for the lower area occupancy work. Subsequently, Peter Thompson did apply for and did receive building permit no. 10- 10130, per paragraphs 61 and 62 above. 64. During the course of applying for and receiving building permit no. 10-10130, Peter Thompson was informed by the City Planning department that they now regarded his property as R 1 and only one cooking facility would be allowed. Peter Thompson wrote a letter stating that as a condition of achieving occupancy under building permit no 08-7435, the cook stove from the area of work permitted under building permit no 10-10 130 would be removed as a i prerequisite condition of later gaining a certificate of occupancy under building permit no 08- 7435. 65. About this same time (paragraph 64 above), Peter Thompson did revisit the City's plan room, to again look at the Cattail Creek Phase Il zoning map amendment document. This plan room visit is partially described in paragraph 5 above. City employee, Bill Stetzner did assist Peter Thompson in the Plan room on this day. Mr. Stetzner helped locate the Cattail Creek Phase It zoning map amendment document and did make a blue print copy of the document for Peter Thompson to purchase. While the copy was being made, Peter Thompson explained to Mr. Stetzner about having to write a letter about the one cook stove in the building in applying for the Building permit and that he had recently been advised the planning department thought his property R 1 based on their GIS map. Mr. Stetzner explained that they were always finding errors in the GIS map and that positive zoning verification was still done in the zoning map amendment drawer. Mr. Stetzner quizzically stated that he was having lunch tomorrow with the person in Page 195 of 270 Page 195 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 charge of the GiS map and that he would get it corrected. This as we could see that the area in question was R2 per the current zoning map amendment document that Mr. Stetzner had just made a copy of. 66. Leaving the plan room conversation with Mr. Stetzner (paragraph 65) Peter Thompson explained to Tara Hastie, at the planning department counter, what Mr. Stetzner had just said and showed her the copy of the zoning map amendment document. Mrs. Hastie then called Dave Skelton, who was out of office with a medical issue. Mr. Skelton told Mrs. Hastie about some files somewhere. Mrs. FTastie then produced a paper from the document folder Mr. Skelton had directed her to. A part of the document explained the R2 lot description of"the zoning map amendment document had been changed from R2 to R 1 via the use of eminent domain in a City meeting. Mrs. Hastie explaining that Mr. Skelton said the zoning map amendment document was incorrect. There was a similar document that spoke about changes from R3 lots to R2 lots. Peter Thompson bought copies of both letter sized documents of change in zoning descriptions and the blue print copy of the original zoning map amendment document. 67. Shortly after the time described in paragraphs 65 and 66 above, Peter Thompson made walk in contact with Brad Stratton of American Land Title Company. After hearing an outline if the issues encountered in paragraphs above, Mr. Stratton explained the issued title insurance did not cover zoning issues and he did not think any submitted claim would be successful. Mr. Stratton presented a copy of what was not covered by the title insurance policy and explained his reasoning. Peter Thompson asked for a copy of what was covered by the insurance policy and left. 68. Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130 was issued to Peter Thompson on September 24th, 2010. This Certificate of Occupancy was issued for work and areas of construction now completed under Building Permit no 10-10130. Page 196 of 270 Page 196 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 69. Peter Thompson began legal occupation under Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130, the sarne week in September of 2010 that the first C of O was issued, at 2988 Blackbird Drive in Bozeman, MT(per paragraph 68 above). 70. Certificate of Occupancy no. 10-10 130 as follows: .... .......... an-Ce Of! ueruneat0: :,, 1 Clei,U 1,p . sped ion t { i 1 This cortirkabb.iasurct fsi�.Ya�yrattt tu:tha req►iirements oft 0 Int6rblition:.#si��siil�nt fil(',rJct� :. . �ertifyilig that at tG le tixne ut issu"00 this st'rticture was fir complwortoww ah:lho vAriju$ ' bkdtn��tras•at'•�hs ct�rattaktt�hul3din�Cans&runtlnn itr tom; [ 1i t3 CN of a C rt�firt ti trf Occttp icy*a iixit tcnt.log a netrodd hs foi nitwit d& ! �a1 ti is 0(tho pro Woo bf this cos>g°irr..uttr r:nkdinti grtif"104.Wa t��rt t►srxll" tt# v :i iithbrlC�V io;�r o t► ct ri4el.: '. txrvlsi�n of this tole of t ' nth�ie•orsli�i�ii �rF-thsi.�uttttdila�i`�ls�l iioi<':he v�li.i�; i i o ozre� C3v�rn r >i'la'uildiri �flY13�. ui � _. i j buildtan tllddClW S t', 13U: WR4 66W; s 1 Upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130, the work authorized under buildvig permit no 10-10130 was now complete and the completed work met the City's minimum requirements for occupancy, as it was originally planned to per paragraph 61 above. 71. Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130 (paragraph 70 above) is a conclusive document binding upon all city agencies and empowered under Montana State Law as follows: MCA: 50-60-107. Certificate of occupancy. (1)A certificate of occupancy for a building constructed in accordance with the provisions of the state building code or county, city, or town building code must certify that the building conforms to the requirements of the building regulations applicable to it. (2)Every certificate of occupancy, unless and until set aside or vacated by a court of competent jurisdiction, is binding and conclusive upon all county, city, or town agencies as to all matters set forth, and an order, directive, or requirement at variance with the certificate of occupancy may not be made or issued by any other state agency or county, city, or town agency. Page 197 of 270 Page 197 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 72. Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130 (paragraph 70 above) is a constitutionally protected document. 73. The US Supreme Court explains: The "hallmark" of a protected property interest is "an individual entitlement grounded in state law, which catuiot be removed except 'for cause.` " Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.,455 U.S. 422,430 (1982) 74. After completing the construction necessary to obtain Certificate of Occupancy no. 10- 10130, moving in and getting past Christmas. Peter Thompson made contact with Attorney Doug Marshal regarding perceived issues outline in the paragraphs above. Mr. Marshal was initially enthusiastic and stated that we might not get much money out of them, but could probably get a city lot or two from the developer. At this early time,Mr. Marshall felt we should sue my real-estate agent, the seller, the developer, the HOA, the title insurance company and the City. Mr. Marshal said to bring your documents in. In a later meeting, Peter Thompson brought Mr. Marshal a file box full of papers and paged thru the box with Mr. Marshal. Peter Thompson explained to Mr. Marshal that he was not comfortable suing everyone, my wife and i had known our realtor for years as a friend. i saw the seller Richard Embry as much a victim of the circumstances as i was and believed the principle issue was with the makings of the City and the Developer(Sandan LLC - owned by Sandra Hamilton and Dan Madison),Mr. Marshal said to keep an open mind and we would talk more later. 75. Peter Thompson was, in or about April 1 May of 2011, confronted with HOA efforts to enforce covenants that were not of record when he purchased within the HOA which Peter Thompson had no knowledge of, as well as HOA taking issue with the duration of construction. Peter Thompson did then requested written response from the HOA on this matter thru their agent Above and Beyond Management. At this same time, Peter Thompson gave notice to the Page 198 of 270 Page 198 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 HOA's agent (Above and Beyond Management) regarding the HOA's design committee review representative, Rob Pertzborn, allowing that construction taking longer than one year would be not be a problem,provided the Defendant had a valid building permit. The issue of trailers being allowed onsite during permitted construction work was also presented to the HOA's agent at this time. The HOA's agent (Above and Beyond Management)wrote a letter to the HOA regarding the issues and requests made of the HOA by Peter Thompson at this time. 76. The HOA failed to respond to this request for written response in 2011 and for a period of time into the following year of 2012, the HOA stopped directly raising issues with Peter Thompson. 77. Subsequent to Peter Thompsons meeting and requests of the HOA's agent, per paragraph 75 above, the HOA did then name Peter Thompson as a person likely to have committed acts of vandalism in the local park. Officer Rick Musson did then aggressively interrogate Peter Thompson and his wife in their driveway at 2988 Blackbird Drive. Peter Thompson did make written request of the PD for all information, documents and records relative to the accusation of the HOA in this matter. City Attorney Gregg Sullivan did apply for order of the Court relative to this document request. The Honorable Holly Brown granted the order requested by Mr. Sullivan. Production per the Courts order did not include any call for service documentation. Production under the Court's order did include a recording of Officer Musson's interrogation. 78. About the time of the request of Peter Thompson, per paragraph 75 and the accusation of the HOA(per paragraph 77 above), the City of Bozeman Building department, in response to a series of calls from the HOA regarding the Thompson family's residency at 2988 Blackbird Drive and the duration of construction under building permit no 08-7435, provided notice to Peter Thompson that building permit no 08-7435 had expired and that the City was revoking Certificate of Occupancy no. 10-10130. In this letter, the City allowed that, for a fee, building permit no 08-7435 could be renewed and subsequent to renewal of the building permit, the City Page 199 of 270 Page 199 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 would allow 30 days to complete the permitted work, remove the basement dwelling allowed under Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130 and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the area of work to be completed under building permit no 08-7435. See Copy of this notice letter as Exhibit R. 79, Peter Thompson called Code Enforcement officer Frojae in response to her letter described above in paragraph 78 (Exhibit R). During this phone call, Peter Thompson compelled officer Frojae to locate the inspection card records and she confirmed that she was incorrect in her determination that building permit no. 08-7435 was expired due to "inactivity". Peter Thompson advised Officer Frojae that substantive work on the structure during the last 6 months had occurred, this as required by the City's adopted code and that the project had also received an inspection validating construction activities within the last 6 months pursuant to the unique card inspection validation of progress requirement of the City. Officer Frojae apologized for her mistake and stated the Peter Thompson had until June 12th to have an approved inspection. 80. Peter Thompson called for and received an approved inspection under building permit no. 08-7435 on June 7th, 2011, as follows: :111"lt tF Pursuant to the City's unique policy of only validating ongoing construction activities thru approved inspection card sign offs,Building Permit no. 08-7435 was now proved up for another 6 months into 2012 as an ongoing and active Building Permit. 81. Peter Thompson, in early June of 2011 contacted new Planning Department head to discuss the zoning issues and the letter obtained from Tara Hastie which explained changes in zoning descriptions had been made via use of eminent domain. This meeting was set up to occur in conjunction with meeting with Chief Building official Bob Risk and Code Enforcement officer Page 200 of 270 Page 200 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 Paula Frojae on June 8th, 2011. With some encouragement, Doug Marshal did attend the early portion of the meeting on June 8th where in Chris Saunders presented documents and explained the City's position relative to zoning confusions regarding R2 vs R 1 issue of Cattail Creek Phase 11. As it had already been established with Code Enforcement officer Frojae that Building Permit no 08-7435 was alive and well and Mr. Marshal was very busy, Mr. Marshal and City Planner Chris Saunders did not attend the second half of the meeting on June 8th, 2011. The second half of the meeting is described as follows: 82. . On June 8th, of 2011, in a meeting at the City Building department office, City of Bozeman's Chief Building official, Bob Risk did coerce Peter Thompson into signing an agreement written by Mr. Risk. Mr. Risk's agreement established a specific completion date for work currently authorized under Building Permit no 08-7435. Mr. Risk committed this act of coercion by momentarily pretending to revoke Peter Thompson's established Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10 130 and also added further weight to this act of coercion by arbitrarily revoking Peter Thompson's active and valid building permit by falsely stating that building permit no 08-7435 was expired for lack of activity under the permit. Mr. Risk's agreement attached as Exhibit S. 83. At the meeting described in paragraph 82 above, Former Code Enforcement Officer Paula Frojae, did verbally support the fact that Building Permit no 08-7435 was in fact in good standing, this,moments before and in the same meeting wherein, Bob Risk did then while acting under the color of law, without due process, summarily, arbitrarily and illegally declare building permit no 08-7435 expired as a part of the act of coercion described in paragraph 82 above. 84. About the time of the June 8th 2011 meeting (paragraphs 82 and 83 above), the substantial investment of Peter Thompson and the related construction work in place, prior to and leading up to the period of time around the June 8th 2010 meeting, had established a property right, lawfully Page 201 of 270 Page 201 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 owed and possessing of constitutional protections under building permit no 08-7435 for the upper area residence at 2988 Blackbird Drive. 84. In a meeting with Doug Marshal subsequent to the June 8th 2011 meeting described above, Mr. Marshal's perspective had changed. Mr. Marshal with little explanation, now stated we would lose the house. Mr. Marshal was referring me to Art Wittich as Mr. Wittich had more experience in this sort of matter and Mr. Wittich had previously referred clients to Mr. Marshal. Mr. Wittich found time to accept calls on the matter, even while in line at the airport on his cell phone at 406 570 5598. Mr. Wittich personally made arrangements for Peter Thompson to meet with his assistant, Amanda Menasco to go over the situation and file box of documents picked up from Mr. Marshal. 85. Peter Thompson met with Wittich Law Firm's, Mrs. Menasco on the 18th of July, 2011 and went over title insurance documents, contacts with the HOA, HOA design review comments from intrinsik Architecture, the seller etc. Mrs. Menasco would review the CCR's, zoning issues and present summary report for purpose of initiating title insurance claim. 86. Peter Thompson and his wife met with Mr. Wittich on July 19th, 2011. Mr. Wittich handed out Mrs. Menasco's summary report of our situation which included names of parties involved etc.. My wife and I agreed Mrs. Menasco had made a good accounting of the folks involved and our perceived issues. Mr. Wittich then collected from my wife and I the copies of Mrs. Menasco's summary report in this same meeting. It seemed like he would recycle the paper or something. Mr. Wittich became uncomfortable because there were window washers outside the conference room and we went to a smaller meeting place. In the second meeting room, Mr. Wittich made a list of things he was to do for us. At the top of the list was initiate our title insurance claim. The following topics were in the body of the list, assess the sellers liability, the developers and the City's in this matter, and verify that the covenant amendments were lawful. We were suspicious of the covenant changes as we were owners when the changes were made Page 202 of 270 Page 202 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 and did not understand how the covenants could be changed without us knowing about it. It was understood in the meeting that Mr. Wittich would write us a letter regarding his recommends on how to proceed in a few weeks. Mr. Wittich commented that we seemed like some really stressed out people and my wife broke down crying, Mr. Wittich provided tissues and then made us a copy of the revised and amended covenants. Mr. Wittich recommended we read them and try to do what they said while he looked into things on our behalf. 87. After a series of prompting letters and months of waiting, Mr. Wittich wrote us a letter with his input on March 6th of 2012. Mr. Wittich's letter was very unsatisfactory and did not address the vast majority of the issues we were expecting his input and help on. In parting ways Peter Thompson made in person and email requests for a copy of Mr. Wittich's to do list from our first meeting and for a copy of Mrs. Menasco's summary of our situation,Wittich Law Finn kept the requested documents from Peter Thompson, 88. After parting ways with Wittich Law Firm, Peter Thompson started in on working to prepare a title insurance claim without Wittich Law Firm's support. This involved requesting documents from the HOA and the City, neither of which has ever provided copies of the requested documents. The title insurance claim investigator did contact the City of Bozeman as part of their investigation. Title insurance claims efforts were protracted and hampered due to failure of the City and the HOA to provide requested documents. Active efforts of claim spanned from March of 2012 thru August of 2013. Efforts in this direction have become stalled due to more pressing issues in maintaining possession of our property at 2988 Blackbird Drive and reacquiring our lawful right to occupy our home and lawfully resume construction to complete the structure. 89. About this same time as our parting ways with Wittich Law Firm, in March or so of 2012, the HOA resumed putting door hanger complaint notices regarding our the presence of our smallish 16 foot stock trailer and duration of construction. Page 203 of 270 Page 203 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 90, The period of time that elapsed between 2011 and 2012, per paragraph 76 above,was enough time so that when the HOA did resume door hanger notices (based on covenants not of record at time of Peter Thompson's closing-paragraph 35) and Peter Thompson did then ask the HOA for records that would shed light how changes to the covenants came about, the HOA could then and did at this later time in 2012 cite, MCA stating that members were only entitled to 3 years back records. 91. Subsequently, per paragraph 90 above, Peter Thompson was prevented by the HOA from getting access to information from the HOA, regarding changes to the covenants of record that Peter Thompson originally purchased his lot within the HOA under. 92. In response to the HOA resuming door hanger complaints regarding construction duration and the presence of a small stock trailer in our driveway, Peter Thompson wrote the HOA's president of the time with a list of issues that needed to be resolved between the HOA and Peter Thompson. See Exhibit T. 93. The HOA responded with by and thru Mr. Jennings in a March 30th, 2012 letter as follows; .l tic covertaits:l'car tl�e.��bdi rt�tc�n end the�c rWnpanying design rog ukiodns di-cran&0. tiiiri to be.com.pl ad C it of Wittihic nt, At,tlil�,poem. yt)u h ye!10 willb Ohd6ne vear a d thy! i*;'s3t Eli concOrhed: understand that you haV r �v d .p�ra�smon: lrrfat�t .(he a}pt alit at fit i talsE t e t.° (t 't>1'lic� 1�t>rrttl ..rfaSide i do.'as,�°nwntofil3u ho: but:ch 'doWIStf ►t 3tt`€" C1t t: t lC t 1<tt'1C il. C"f�sl? l ?l t� tC. t�) L �tS lit: rr.`;t. 11 I110st O 'iC1` s s ep-"1"or the a 5t► aatton �vc�ultl 1�:' ( 3 .> . 1 atd3 tLiltli;G(ic_}[1 cgaTri t you q pr'o',Cllt -"ou 1rotn all,.. Se Unlit it j° t xnii let [f th ulkes tint Step I ►%,lie\' Onw, iI v011 ent:lll l to' its a Wrf;l ihes a.f$d Ct'm t x 41.4g_ 4i'M �(W, `cO$tch _t)uld !# e tile ralher q hsv F"�(ti'.yifll. Rather OW 1aX-C Court action, Ow 64 ,ard 1^i 'willing, to ;ally)"w you tO cont`tf w..M..St lfif the boos pro.v.1 deA -thA it take sivi-is w mitigole dlu impact on the n i bbuirl ` lin't sti. 6 Will be to re.-mov t storage container l�,catrrcl a ong tl�� �trrstl� yitl� �. frw`odr, h6lls* ,'1 hai�c�ttt<�iiic�r is�t�i. htl� dnd tint c.onst;ltent.�viih::th 'intent (it the t;t �,ellutzts fi��r Ow sut-klit Lsiolll R l Of tho �'ttar to :ci.rlf r3er 11 .a f itt ll �.31 _*Ili art yc tl t a::11;`t fits idlr� y in Ow ko.tr, .. 01. OU rpar.cA.p y kcc p ,.i hors trldler earl the prenll:�o "Fh ;.eo%-cliant—prec tide 10f414- p�st���lt itettt � ft;'th rt arts v l'td tiffs >4 clt #i#ti €1 iwld hat,c it i s d.all Ilatk for th tom � and t>�rage ast . vur' ' lc>ttat�rr� r�rtt i$ l E l''ihe irar lei i11 be tk :sip ci id con,Ric of itllc�c�°ir►�*�'p�to cOntinu��ttur� �idatley Page 204 of 270 Page 204 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 t 1r x �r fair+ f11 h attse i s. to et 1 df � Y Sid e l :and nds .l tf�g 1� c t t b l t'I' a' s {T N, r i,t�st;iEecl.' 'hc� cen 0 CMS ; It dtc� coo, t � tiY f hat f d t�cc t> at itarf� ;unitbepci Bible. tc ci t pplet oijh+ n it Mil m o te fbIvdra bieAkt oth or.c r Eiii em t The sgoc. atjai SANJi i��.g t ise-Liss. a.ti:ixteta Mlale u►x as..ii.jz44166n , ing th ...cc t cyr�s_ictwi ...y icl�d that ' tl per:s�ut�dt inn it3 the r tri; �ti�� i 1 ne. ddt ibi kurbd tie land lh6 rea uacent tb�m.r.periyY:% e #c ar s�b,ltty t+ c tr t r tz.4 Ave a ht t t? ygtt dsrt can the ad p 1 is i r .p a : y:` ,u. i . �'�* c t ii t 16 -t e r : tra;ae cp 1 1 e ,t}ts ii gvvuded y V v1d d:0€"ne e plan;lor �i1 g.t rtg tl1 dam a c,.lnolu ing a t r seta1`I its lctte.1: '. 1 i> ►t i ll:f~ t t t e ta;pr bi r .; '€ t rx in tb s I��ttt' .t1 e ss t t Y�r n t a ,IaI �x tii .t644Jfdin fit 7.lp of�p r le:t iis� l ctn in is gdoancy.,1f you w it ni t agr c' r�th�S* tC rriaf,tlieif l c�ill.. r �ft�ntrtd t�� tlltr,� ;�{ � ttalt t�.lit I411t!htt u i 4? I't�t1�iFl #c: xav r�iui�1t1S��y f �ait ::thetcat: ��1w 0' ;: P."Silwl , 1!''tl�c nub siie . ui'I an or et and yoi ten rf dt te:tk�t;le,..�s�� �# the i i� t.,,you c.titi l ibt t i. i � G;�f ter i t l and tined car' �i e as t'i i s0 t 11"you bolipl( th t. ut�:66 iritl�.all tli�. � ibitit �'o1 tlic �cclt,rt a a c to atto n ; to e:anCl caurt.t c��rts it�:gtainl ��ppr ars 1Wt it ►�;o, I(:t i.n; tr tr; t int r t lc 111 uptheie i c trutin t0: exiericx� . � � t lic u .4:i st �ttrid. ca is ; i =�11� and'ire Ott°iVCW';A�_-, ails rice all � Cleal�fiI dip.�le . i� c I lit lt�a� in :i is r t it lcin t°:. rt it" a Id °r�u must zigi t .tl e i rf� s l st iir.�: rzY c�t`1"t° �;ftt �l'tl 't � ttei acid�t. ►► eeerieel,� + �v th dG 's 1erd}trg 'l ��se:iet.t�r�,iiti���. +�tcitxrr r ppt .x 1.41 y \k*Me f'eitnffi# 94. Peter Thompson responded to the HOA's demand letter above with 21 pages of details and references laying bare all perceived issued between the parties,various requests for documents within the HOA's control were made and did also propose solutions. One of which being that the HOA separate undisputed billings from disputed ones, so as the parties could remain current with undisputed assessments. 95. The HOA's response is summarized as follows: Page 205 of 270 Page 205 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 may 10, ?01..2.. *.,.Peter [ iam*� . : ... . .. .. ... De W. 1 mkvVitir tE e I and o d rectOrs ti. yotu r pan a ei:my f h 1J�2012.fetter, In shirt..the bna l aad v respc�i b ptable.`l herefi. %h i�ompl knee ith the cc�vena�fIs..for.the subii' i. itt rhotieril ipe t gb in nedtal as ai!ir.attempt tc�resolv�;the sifivarion:_�fc3r . 11 lt1 A otfrl a ttgri Th . trf pCfSf'4 tkEal t�' use tll#:'t 1N 1c+es.of �ll1�tltf or.Z: &it1I1 . Cll clfit�Iit'i. vlho lle: hothtcii . a .lrajaat aztd o0rine me.diatnrs: .t �tatether mditiar in.rdirid.� Iae U. � • z�ana catucli Person. ��`}:tf�.��urtt�ular n�e+�rUtikir. �S not aw rnipc�rta. t 1. t I arif .th f Wi. q. of the per ry pr�a ns t1 .ix.0 d to t C is .trciit�:tlir: partios.:.: :. 96. Peter Thompson did personally speak with the retired Honorable Judge Karla Gray, Judge Gray responded to a voice mail left by Peter after looking up Judge Gray in the white pages. Peter Thompson respects the logic of the wide range of Judge Gray's decisions that the he has read. in the phone call with Judge Gray, she made clear she could not comment or provide any elaboration on her past published decisions as she remained on call for adjudication of issues as may be needed. Peter Thompson imagined that Judge Gray may be available for employment as mediator in the HOA's proposed mediation and put her forth as a proposed mediator to the HOA. Tile HOA did not respond to Peter Thompson on the topic of proposed mediator or discovery that Peter Thompson felt entitled to prior to actively engaging in mediation. 97. Peter Thompson reached the final point in 2012 with the HOA, where after,the HOA became non responsive and had little or no further direct contact with Peter Thompson until filling of the recent complaint now before the Court as follows: Page 206 of 270 Page 206 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 . . . . yer :3i i#s . t 1704 W Sabcgc jtH, Mori J�Par tt..Wayhe;l :Jerir►iris t= iir t 1aVirtg:iia[ 1V n rf�riataers of yeuf rpl>bt'tnyrt:1 iar �r�qut:lt�niy ttaal#ca you rifitttoarri 'by; 1 h:.}t r�tl.d tiverari Attafst rt nts 1 thru r:'7`fi �ciairespori i�nce itFt,Yeau',#hat l need tta Vertain you ti roiia f ±ptdays ri w i rl.#lea tf r g rital i r±t►tr ci ih tack yaru:' I-..YO rit f maJtor3 davm u € 0 f long tarfn trt latrrt t iiritt l`i f tti g v>�a i`t! # ? .attt!.bead t : da l the ,9ta Sr Me.w. 0 agil a tt r tsar aat tl 't,th ;Flt # fgltts�ix# s s s rtd; r y d Pf jl:l+t f i ert�erit di _ ar�z l a t cerr poaidant b ltfth 3*H0 80ar t xt t ii fr�ra ari in #h rc is #lrt f Cr�t>ae>l Jtt tt riaarttJ 0l myl mrcn 23.2012 lettf r tc Mr Mtirster �b�ua��s�yQr,d 'ttr r#+,f rN l atSt "t1t�s��bcut t� Mtnrtic(r iana am6rr►, i arr3 requesiif14 cbo"df tk +a Rapeii SM ihY. . fStJ p 00109,.p 11l& tr i i�81+ i8 3 f1� tt i Above fin , eytand�i11c3rbat�epient wa �i9�ita$� t 1 .tJf: E f3f1tB tC7 party t{1 kC1t t i.1�a AN A.:-t ! V�Ist i[ Jhe sca re s[}5f1a�.t at3 �# tB flay.lUti ZiJ ivir. Jrrtrttii ,`.!. fn 91it y ar<sua'Mini►tav req�atIdfatfen:arid 1 ' .t ppYrApt�l that: virir° tjt rt+ritt Yi n artC# $t,starti6lY t ;aVt`ta invci4srarl Mr.Jeftnir ,rva: o.f9t#Vim.tia tae r kln9.i�riy. Pgr pith the VVfl tf r. i»14 vary: Wbet. , Flo.WjWiu{d.yqu feet 4b0gt dapbsiti0raS lft prep ratlpit fir cur 1 5 : tt c9r tt pn 1 m`i t r st l irl: veritually getting ; t�rtt rtk Pri nt anrtr a iltpa,.t7> ri M tfr v ,lwt ant# tly Sul#bran, Ca yiS:t4 U ie.r, ,Jaymie. .A-t• tt,-R0 t�awtzt,pctrr;Suf� iti laitW. iit� tJatltf3il iVli ;eCrtd pt�sslaly eta , Irh . a :lhe mOvittg: y tri tti .'stie;;: zu pt _ r cif v Jdtng.0 t you . . rraaftirtt * . PI W. 98. After the HOA effectively withdrew from their proposed mediation by failing to respond, the City of Bozeman had further contact with the HOA regarding the Thompson residence at 2988 Blackbird Drive, the Thompson family's occupation of their dwelling and ongoing construction permission agreements between the City and Peter Thompson, 99. The construction work permitted under Building permit no. 08-7435 included a main floor bedroom with a frill ADA bathroom for Peter Thompson's mother in law, Maija Katlaps. Maija was distressed by our circumstances and long running problems in endeavoring to get her room done in our intended family home. Maija was invested in completing work under building permit no 08-7435, provided assistance in going about our title insurance claim,networked and did research thra her contacts at church and proposed solutions to our problems with the Building department based on input Page 207 of 270 Page 207 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 1.2 from a local architect. The Building Department, by and thru Bob Risk denied Maija's ideas on how we could figure out to move forward. Maija was a prayer deacon at her church and often prayed for relief from our problems at prayer meetings. Maija's reverend came to our home at 2988 Blackbird drive for several prayer meetings to help us get through our problems in the paragraphs above. Maija was distressed and worked to help us thru our troubles with the City in many ways. Maija passed away before we able to finish her room in the house. 100. At some point in time after becoming non responsive to mediation efforts per paragraph 97 above, the HOA received copies of the agreement drafted by City Building Chief Bob Risk. The HOA brought to the City's attention that Mr. Risk's agreement, although plainly stating on the signing line and in other areas of the agreement that Peter Thompson hand until Dec of 2013 to complete work under building permit no 08-7435, that other aspects of the agreement could be interpreted to only allow until Dec of 2012 for the completion of the work. 101 . The City responded to the HOA's input of paragraph 100 above and announced their intentions compel Peter Thompson to finish work under Mr. Risk's agreement by Dec 2012. This created a great deal of stress which contributed to my wife on several occasions thinking she was having a heart attack that resulted in paramedic responses to 2988 Blackbird Drive as well as time in the emergency room. We did what we could to earn enough money to keep up with the mortgage payments and get things done outside before winter set in. During the visits leading up to the City's announced intention to end permission in Dec of 2012, Code enforcement officer Frojae reminded us that she would turn this "case" over to the City Attorney's office if we did not get things done in time. Mrs. Frojae also told stories about how on other projects she had helped to get Court orders to kick folks out and had later shown up with the armed PD to help kick folks out and board things up. Page 208 of 270 Page 208 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 102. Towards December of 2012, the stresses of dealing with the City's pressure became acute, resulting in Peter Thompson receiving medical treatment at Hope House in a situation that deteriorated, resulting in the arrest, hospitalization and the County petitioning for the involuntary commitment of Peter Thompson. 103. The City, about December of 2012 provided written notice that construction work previously authorized via Mr. Risk's agreement was no longer allowed and that any further work would require a new building permit and new construction documents. At this time Code Enforcement Officer Paula Frojae's previous statement that Certificate of Occupancy no. 10- 10130 remained valid and intact, held true. 104. About early January, the Code Enforcement Officer Paula Frojae turned matter over to the City attorney's office as an expired building permit issue without mention of any certificate of occupancy issues. 105. On infoy-mation and belief Peter Thompson alleges that the HOA, in this time period(Jan - March of 2013) resumed complaining about habitation and or construction duration at 2988 Blackbird Drive. On March 15th, 2013, City Attorney Kyla Murray determined that due to the City's breach of the written agreement with Bob Risk,now Certificate of Occupancy no 10- 10130 was no longer valid. Mrs. Murray set out terms where the Thompson family could acquire a new building permit, and a temporary Certificate of Occupancy but would be compelled to complete all remaining work within 30 days and obtain a certificate of occupancy within the same time to be allowed to lawfully continue living in their home. See Exhibit U. 105. On June 30, 2013, City of Bozeman's Chief Building official Bob Risk did in fact revoke Peter Thompson's Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130. This revocation was without due process of the sort intended and required by the US Constitution,before or after, Mr. Risk's summary revocation of this day. Mr. Risk's revocation was also in violation of Montana state Page 209 of 270 Page 209 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 law per paragraph 71 above. Mr. Risk's summary revocation as follows: Certi ',of i r �.Ga ad [k 11C1 1 dt� a 314imw UfC k'E�'3atrwv.. �iti;[tiC6lJ1Y,S-WA Sli UEEd PU4u" Al3.a1 i.3.F#.1C73CtVU33- . I$au ni of a, ca a of mil? shalt a cc�mstrrke�its APPI.avat of a ` `. vialatis�n a s prrr Iona r>rf thar oir�!fir of the uij6iIkI-4 3n.:. C,et#aYita p�� "e �xaartl�p tQ v�lat.�mt� ins4" of. ! r, rasdreti . IJA cl nbe 1 � 4 RO f V '"fit' a" nt i uilf*ig Addis:; 7. UYio g.OffitCYWOMWTION 107. Mr. Risk did on this same day of paragraph 106 above, did write Peter Thompson a letter stating that Peter Thompson was no longer permitted to be living in his home with his family at 2988 Blackbird Drive and that any and all additional work done on the structure at 2988 Blackbird Drive, without a valid building permit would be illegal. Mr. Risk's letter of this day, also stated that any previously issued Certificates of Occupancy for the structure at 2988 Blackbird Drive were now revoked. However,Mr. Risk's correspondence offered no real evidence that Mr. Risk was not again pretending in yet another act of coercion as he had in the past (see paragraph 82 above). Mr. Risk's revocation letter did not speak specifically to Certificate of Occupancy no 10-10130 by name. Mr. Risk's letter did not mention the established US postal service address for the lower area dwelling unit at this time, nor did Mr. Risk's letter provide any copy of whatever C of O (s)he was allegedly revoking at this time. The document Page 210 of 270 Page 210 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 of paragraph 106 above, was withheld from Peter Thompson until Discovery production by the City in the matter of CR2014-00070 on December I I th, 2014. 108. City of Bozeman's Chief Building official Bob Risk in his June 30th 2013 letter to Peter Thompson (Risk's letter also described per paragraphs 107 above), did somewhat explain the actions taken on the day of his June 30th letter as being per Peter Thompsons failure to comply with the agreement draft by Mr. Risk. Mr. Risk explaining, "Your original building permits expired along with the temporary agreement T drafted to allow you an opportunity to come into compliance." 109. On August 12th, 2013 Peter Thompson did write City of Bozeman Attorney Kyla Murray on the topics of paragraphs 103 thru 108 above. The topic of the August 12th letter to the City being an effort to repair the City's breach of the contract drafted by Mr. Risk per paragraph 82 above, Exhibit S, (The agreement drafted by Mr. Risk allow for one full year more to complete the work at 2988 Blackbird Drive at the time the City breeched the agreement in terminating the agreement draft by Mr. Risk, one full year before the end date specified) and the related allegations that Peter Thompson and his family were no longer permitted to be living in their home at 2988 Blackbird Drive. The other plain intention of this August 12th, 2013 letter to City Attorney Kyla Murray was to make clear that the City's actions in this matter were illegal. 110. The City of Bozeman remained silent to the written specifics of paragraph 109 above and remained similarly silent to further probing of related specifics via a series of letters and emails to City Attorney Kyla Murray. City Attorney Kyla Murray confirmed receipt of about 7 letters spanning from August 12th 2013 thru to January 2nd 2014 on this topic. The City substantially remained silent to all specific facts, interrogatories and requests for information via this series of letters to the Attorney's office. 111. Thru the acquiescence of silence (per paragraph I i 0) and the City's failure to provide any direct proof of the alleged revocation of C. of O no 10-10 130 (Per Mr. Risk's June 30th 2013 Page 211 of 270 Page 211 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 letter- Paragraph 107 above), on January I st 2014, Peter Thompson wrote City Attorney Kyla Murray a letter declaring C of O 10-10130 as valid now in 2014 as it was when issued in 2010. As follows: Wediiesd,y, kinuary 01, 2, Kyla C. �'lcrrrt�y Otv Prose eut r Regarding OccupancyTermit.No 104 i 0.130 Tear �.�(;t C� :�t�x•t•���; ..; :. . `: ``' H,a\ing brought to your attention ire my Septernber f . 20131 tter t x tA� 1i �rt constructiontvtt Perini ttes 1t.nder building pertriit �1a 1U 10130 wheat Calulte.: s intended to meet the Citsi c Bozeman'' niihimum rec{crier~���t� ��r::+��.t��ja�i��� tsb h'City of 13ca ert an Building l4specto•, d'td intpe t the: ysa ^r nc��n t:�n�pl ;r r►ci. :. !'c�urt:i tt;to he in ecrt� pliarre u itit the rrt.ittecl,ronstt;uetican dcutt7r* t ttric�th7 tstte, 1 Optcpnc prtt�tl x`v'[r, 10-111130 a r the, etne Omeedute�Fcau cletai,lc1 ic�'tne tn: cur Sitemr. rr` 2013 letter. .' l la.{,xXLa'A 6 dtro ' rorP OJx P. .0 thi r y pit ibcr tr# ap 1 v3 IA 1t ';tv Ycs►a 1`e9a 4013 r + tx beep t 1 rt rlem nt O fic:r~r 1*61a 1 runts chat �uc� were ltn wlth rwt a t°ri�it'1to, 10.1 g13(l anti ha�fin received no documents' 6°fir natty r�a.n tar r ���1n C�ptapa�l�� 1' -kmit,No 10. 10130 west know that OCCUp tteV'Pe'rfrit Nb11 10-1.01 O wits��r���1y issuer t c1 a do�iarrient tlt�t r i11 stated up in court. 11'`crcr of,an yctrte elm lef twith_i aw4re c 'arty tnttnttirn reyutretn nt rf...... Final occupancy as detat1[0.14 i:W- rn vOuc!Sepim TO We that are not art et:by work . completedundet`ecrrt�,tt��t�d.�p:� tt 1`�Ib, 10-10130, please. let me kht:�v as:soon a, passible and we will mak . 410. 7rs Respectfully aimPeter Thompson Page 212 of 270 Page 212 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 1.2 112. The City failed to provide Peter Thompson any evidence to contradict the declarations of paragraph I 1 I above until the City's production of Discovery relative to CR2014-00070 on December I I th of 2014. 113. CR-2014-00070 is an act of litigation that spanned approximately 210 days consisting of 165 pages of documents. This case was dismissed without prejudice on March 4th, 2015. The full case files of CR-2014-00070 will be submitted as a later Exhibit relative to third party claims. 114. The City again brought action against Peter Thompson based on the same single ongoing act that was the City's basis for CR-2014-00070 in the matter ofTK-15-03459. This particular criminal suite of the City against Peter Thompson remains an active case of the City in Municipal Court, currently scheduled for Trial on May 3rd, 2016. If this matter is adjudicated per Montana Rule of Law,this case will be dismissed with prejudice at some point in time prior to trial. The full case files of this matter will be submitted as a later Exhibit relative to third party claims. 115. Peter Thompson received notice of the matter of TK-15-03459 within one day of service of the HOA's complaint now before the District Court as the matter of DV 15-636C. Defense in the matter of TK-15-03459 has been very time consuming and strenuous. Without a decent background of the overall all facts, every attempt at brevity thru single sets of facts per single counts falls short of accurately communicating the circumstances before the Court. Subsequently this overly long opening pleading. 116. The HOA's affirmative step in preventing Peter Thompson from getting access to information that would shed light on how covenant changes were made, without his knowledge or notice, while he was a property owner-per paragraphs 75, 76, 90 and 91, was circumnavigated thru years of persistent questioning of neighbors met on dog walks in the park. Page 213 of 270 Page 213 of 270 i Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 117. in 2015, the Defendant did locate someone who said they were at the meeting where combining the HOA's was voted on. This person described this meeting as follows: 118. Notice to and voting of the members, where it was decided to combine the formerly separate HOA associations,was only to combine three associations into one. There was no notice of substance, discussion of or voting for any substantive covenant amendment other than combining and consolidating the three formally separate HOA associations into one HOA. There was no voting quorum established at the meeting. The newly formed, combined HOA, is the entity which now brings action before the Court as the Plaintiff in this matter. 119. Document of record no. 2300076, confirms the initial statement of paragraph 118 as follows: MIMMa c nar lnll�Fltlt ..£. t tit in!.n IIT7fE�l. %7i ikl WHEREAS, on Marsl-.24, 2008, Phases 1. 2 and 3 of Cattail Creek Community Associations conducted an election and roceived ballots by rnore than 75% of their respective members c4flimatively votaig to consolidate the covenants for each phase of Cattail Creek SubdivNon, the Bylaws for each phase of Cattail Creek subdivision and delt., rninlrrcl fur the betterment of all Phases of Cattail Creek Subdivision, the governing Community Associations should be consolidated into one.Community Association; and 120. On information and belief,Peter Thompson alleges the HOA actually voted on combining per the description of paragraph 119 above in 2006 and failed. The various boards of directors again put the issue to the land owners in 2007. Sandan LLC owners hold positions on the various boards. 121. In 2007, without providing notice of an actual voting meeting were parties of the three separate HOA's could speak for or against the proposed combination of the three separate HOA's as a full group of property owners at a duly held meeting. The various boards mailed out some proxy ballots and later alleged to property owners to have acquired enough mail in ballots to finally approve the combination of the 3 previously separate HOA's. Page 214 of 270 Page 214 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 122. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that there was no notice of substance of meeting and contractually required voting at a duly held meeting where 75% of the represented property owners in fact voted to combine the fonnerly three separate HOA's on March 26th 2008 as described in doe. 2300076, per paragraph 119 above. 123. Requirements for amending any covenant of the former three HOA groups are consistent with the requirements of Cattail Creek Phase ii document no. 2131569 as follows: ARTICLE,V111 P ISCE L,)t..,ANWUS PRt( V- SIr1 NS LS"ECTI-QN 1. In addition to ttae rights reserved to the Ueclara"t to modify or supplement th-e Cattail Creek Covenants with respect: to laftd annexed to Cattail Creck, the Cattail. Crock COve:nant:s, May,at any time, be amended.or replaced upon the happening of all the 10 11 awing events: A. 'rhe vote of 0kvners having 4ot less than tluve-quarters (1r'4) of the total votes cat"each c;.la.;i of Owners Of lots theh within Cattail Crock Covenants; at a meeting of the Association duly la-,ld: For the pUrposes of this section, an Owner will he allowed a MuMbOr Of v6teg equal to the nlurttbcr of dwelling units assessed to hirer lot at the tMe Of the propC)sed election. The notice of the meeting shall Mate that the purpose of the Meeting is to Wilsider the amendment or repeal of the rattail Creek Covenanu, giving IN .subsumce or any proposed amendmcnts or indicating the provisions to he repealed, as the cwre may lc; and 13, The recorda►tio►n of a certificate of the Secretary Or an Assistant Secretary ca-f thic Association setting; forth: in full the amendment or arnendmcn -�; to the Cattail Creek so approved, :including any portion or portions thereof repealed, and certifying that said amendment or amendments have ben approvtA by vote of the Owners pursuant these covenants, 124. Aside from the statement cited in paragraph 119 above, there are no other statements within document no. 2300076 (this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court) that can be construed as making the contractually required statements of paragraph 123 above, as required for the amendment of any covenant of the originally separate HOA covenants. Page 215 of 270 Page 215 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 125. The statement of paragraph 119 above from document no. 2300076 does not certify that the voting process occurred pursuant to the common requirements of all of the originally separate covenant contracts, as is required by the respective original contracts. 126. The specific contract requirement for statement certifying that voting was pursuant to the requirements of the original contracts is as follows: that said fying amendment or amendments have been approved by vote of the Owne sl pursuant these covenants. 127. The failure of contract no. 230076 to make a plain statement that voting for the combining and consolidating of the three original covenant contracts occurred purwant to the requirements of the original contract in paragraph 123 above, constitutes a mistake of contract no. 2300076. 128. The contractual duty imposed by the original contract (paragraph 123) effectively requires anv future amendments to include a notarized statement of the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary of the HOA to make a plain statement that voting did occur in compliance with the requirements of the original contract. 129. Document no. 2300076 (this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court), technically fails to fulfill the contractual requirements of the original contracts on the topic of combing the three separate HOA's into one. Doc. No. 2300076 is not signed by anyone named as the Secretary or the assistant secretary of the original Phase IT HOA. 130. Document no. 2300076 (this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court), fails to make any certified statement that land owners had notice of, opportunity to vote at meeting for or against any proposed amendment and that successful voting occurred for any covenant addition or deletion other than combining the three separate HOA's into one HOA. Page 216 of 270 Page 216 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 131. The operative contractual obligations of all the original covenants for all amendments ai)d or deletions of covenants is specifically as follows: 'reek Covenants, may, at any time, be amended or replaced upon, the happening of all the following events: Per above, all of the following events and certifications that all such events have in fact occurred are contractual requirements for any/all ammendments or deletions to the original covenant contracts. 132, Section A of Article VTTT (paragraph 123) requires as follows: A. The vote of Owners having not less than three-quarters (3l4) of the total riot-es of each class of Owners of lots then within Cattail Creek Covenants at a meeting of the Association duly held. 133. Per section A above(paragraph 132), the requirement is for 75%property owner approval at meeting of the Association duly held. This particular contract clause effictivly prohibits gathering of proxy ballots after a meeting for subsquent and later final voting approval. Furthermore,there is no provision that would allow for use of mail out or mail in ballots. 134. Other administrative Articles of the Covenant contract do have provisions for proxy votes to make decisions relative to required management actions and leviing of fees as need to keep the HOA opperational. 135. Articles that do allow for proxy voting have their own Article topic specific tenants for proxy voting. 136. Article VTTT includes provisions for ammendment of the Covenents. Article VITI has 110 article specific provision for the use of proxy votes in ammending the Covenants. 137. The operative contractual obligations of all the original covenants for all amendments and or deletions of covenants is specifically as follows: Page 217 of 270 Page 217 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 1.2 Creek Covenants, may, at any time, be amended or replaced upon the happening of all the following events; A. The notice of the meeting shall state that the purpose of the meeting is to consider the amendment or repeal of the Cattail Creek Covenants, giving the substance of any proposed amendments or indicating the provisions to be repealed, as the case may be; and 138. Per paragraph 137 above, notice of the substance of any proposed aminendment or repeal of any provision must be given for all additions or deletions to any of the original covenant contracts prior to having the required duly held meeting as described in pargraph 132 above. 139. The common contractual elements for additons or deletions to all of the original covenant contracts that were combined to form the current HOA\Plaintiff in this complaint are summarized in Peter Thompson's words as follows: A. Notice of substance of addition or deletion of of each contractual arnmendment prior to a Duly held meeting, B. Assembly of property owners at a Duly held meeting where there is a opportunty for property owners to speak for or against, any and all proposed changes to the covenant contract where 75% of the property owners do vote in favor of the previosly noticed additions or deletions to the covenant contract. C. Recordation at the Court house of a certified statement of the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary of the HOA stating that voting occurred persuant to the Covenants and said certificate is also required to state specifically what deletions were in fact made and what specfie additions were made. 140. There are a variety of covenant amendments within document no. 2300076(this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court)that were not a part of any of the original three association covenant documents which were combined into document no. 2300076, 141. Change in Voting Majority needed to ammend covenats as follows: Page 218 of 270 Page 218 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 All of the original covenants required a 75%voting majority to ammend covenants, now the active members under the reformed HOA of 200$(Per document no. 2300076 -this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court)may more easliy change the covenants with a lesser 2/3 majority as follows: e^ 0. W � vCD a•- pil] N il O N he vote of Owners having not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the total votes within Cattail Creek at a meeting of the Association duly held. The notice -. of the meeting shall state that the purpose of the meeting is to consider tho arnondment ar repeal of the, Cattail Creek Covertanis, giving the a substance of any proposed amendments or indicating the provisions to w MCA be repealed, as the Case may be; and I.R �tl 142. Changing from a 75%percent majority needed to ammend covenants to 66%majority needed to ammend covenents is a subtanative change to all the original covenant contracts that would require enactment in complaince with Article VTII Section I to be a lawfully enacted ammendment to the original covenat contracts. 143. The ammendment described in pat-graph 141 is an ammendment of the original coveant contracts that goes beyond the scope of property owner approval for ammendment alleged by the HOA per pargraph 119 above. 144. Hold Harmless water waiver changes as follows: None of the original three covenant contracts provided any agreement to hold harmless, the Farmer Canal Company, it's successors, Covenants Investments Inc, it's officers, directors or successors in interest, the Communtiy Associatoin nor adjacent land owners. The only Page 219 of 270 Page 219 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 statements regarding water level hazards or soil hazards found by Peter Thompson in the original covenants merely pertained to the Design review committee as follows: SECTION 5. Limitation of Responsibilities The primary goal of the CCDC is to review the submitted applications, plans, Specifications, materials, and samples in order to determine if the proposed structure conforms to the CattailCreek Subdivision covenants, The CCDC sloes not assume responsibility for the folio-wing: The structural adequacy, capacity, or safety features of the proposed structure or improvement. Soil erosion, ground water levels, non-compatible or unstable soil conditions. MIN 110 2131569 , 11/12/2003 0 40 Malley v.noa-Wrliatln Co MT MIEC 240,0 Compliance with any or all building codes, safety requirements, and governmental laws, regulation or ordinances. The covenants refiled in 2008 (Per document no. 2300076 -this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court)provide that apon acceptance of the covenant 5.4(b), the land owners agree to hold harmless a variety newly introduced entities as follows: Page 220 of 270 Page 220 of 270 t."Ahibit 12 Exhibit 12 5A Notice of Water Features (a) Notice: Each owner of property within Cattail Creek,as individuals and as members of the Association, acknowledges the presence of water features within the subdivision. Each owner of property within Cattail Creek, as individuals and as members of the Association, tom..M 4 acknowledges that water could pose a danger to humans, animal life 0 m and property. By this acknowledgment, each owner of property within GU,©m-n Cattail Creek, as individuals and as members of the Association t►);�' assumes the normal and ordinary consequences of their actions when Q n in, next to or in the vicinity of water features within Cattail Crook. m M (b)Hold Harmless. Each owner of property within Cattail Creek, as individuals, agrees by acceptance of this covenant to hold harmless Covenant Investments, Inc., its officers and directors, and successors in = interest, the Community Association, adjacent property owners, and G the Farmer Canal Company and its successors in interest for any water related injury to persons, property and animals and damage due to acts of God and nature, including but not limited to a flood from the canal and other water features resulting from circumstances beyond the control of the parties listed herein, x_ � v (c)Insurance: Each owner of property within Cattail Creek acknowledges =_ that it is advisable to seek insurance to protect the owner's property in the case of a water event relating to the water features. 145. Holding harmless a range of entities not previouvsy enttiled to such protections under any of the original covenant contracts is a subtanative change to all the original covenant contracts that would require enactment in complaince with Article VIII Section I to be a lawfully enacted ammendment to the original covenat contracts. 146. The ammendment described in pargraph 144 is an ammendment of the original coveaut contracts that goes beyond the scope of property owner approval for ammendment alleged by the HOA per pargraph 1.19 above. 147. Change in responsibility for legal fees as follows: The original Phase 11 covenants stated: III oil 110 111111111 2131569 Paw! 20 of 40 11r1212003 m; 49P a(hrli Y Vans-Oalistln ca Ms raise 240.00 Enforcement of these covenants by Declarant, CCDC, Board, Owner or any party having standing, shall include for the party seeking enforcement and prevailing in such enforcement, an award of costs,fees and reasonable attomey's fees. Page 221 of 270 Page 221 01 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 The new filed covenants of 2008(Per document no. 2300076-this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court) establish an improved portion for the drafter of the contract relative to recovery of legal fees, if then when litigation breaks out. Per below,the first paragraph was part of all the oringinal covenants,the second paragraph was not part of arry of the original covenant contracts: Q Enforcement of these: Covenants by the, Declarant, CCDC, Board of a Directors, Owner or any party having standing, shall Include for the party Nn� _ seeking enforcement and prevailing in such enforcement, an award of costs, fees and reasonable attorney's fees. �> Should any lawsult or cattier legal proceeding be instituted by the E Association or an owner against an owner alleged to have violated one or more of the provisions of these Covenants and should the Association or owner enforcing the provisions of the Covenants be wholly or partially successful in such proceedings, the offending owner shall be obligated to pay the casts of such proceeding, including reasonable attorney's fees for :all time: nssociated with the action. 148. Allowing the HOA to recover Attorney's fees for all time associated with any legal action wherein the HOA only partially previals in ligation is a significatly more dominant legal portion for the dafter of the new revised contract(Per document no. 2300076 -this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court)which none of the original HOA's were previously enttiled to under any of the original covenant contracts. This is a subtanative change to all the original covenant contracts that would require enactment in complaince with Article VIII Section I to be a lawfully enacted ammendment to the original covenat contracts. 149. The ammendment described in pargraph 147 is an ammendment of the original coveant contracts that goes beyond the scope of property owner approval for ammendment alleged by the HOA per pargraph ] ]9 above. Page 222 of 270 Page 222 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 150. On information and belief, Peter Thompson alleges that Mr. Jennings participated in the drafting of document no. 2300076 - this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court. 151. On information and belief, Defendant Peter Thompson that Mr. Jennings drafted the second paragraph of the new covenants (document no. 2300076 - this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court) seen in paragraph 147 above. 152. inequitable contract clauses such as the HOA has rights to collect fee's for all cost of litigation even though they may only prevail on a de minimus aspect of litigation demonstrates to the Court the importance of establishing that these covenant contracts now before the Court are in fact adheasion contracts and should be adminsistered as such in Montana Courts. 153. This particular contract clause (second pargraph, doc. No.2300076, at 147 above)takes away the Court's authority to determine whether or not there was a previailing party and if not, whether or not a partially prevailing party is deserving of reimbursemnt for legal expenses. 154. Repeal of land use restriction as follows: Rob Pertzborn of Intrinsik Archticture, for the benefit of his client (The Klos Living Trust, owned by James Mitchell, James and Jane Klos) did facilitate the conversion of 8 original Phase 11 lots into 12 smaller lots capable of 24 dwelling units when ADU permits are granted. Rob Pertzborn of instrinsik Architecture, did use his inside knowledge of the low denisty .25 acre lots in Phase 11 to help his client capitalize on subdividing these lots to be more conforming with the original medium density zoning of this area. Rob Pertzborn did descibed the neigbors response at public meetings where he did aquire legal rights for the benefit of The Klos Living Trust to bring the subdvision density of the proposed Foxttail Street Subdivision, more in line with the intended medium density zoning for this area within Cattail Creek Phase 11, along the lines of, the locals turned out with pitch forks and torchs to oppose the subdivision, they said the neighborhood would end up like Valley West and they did not want this. Page 223 of 270 Page 223 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 155. Phase III residents had deeded protection against increases in dwelling unit density as foil ows: 2206253 Pass; 43 a 43 6hs11ay VM00 4a114t1n Ce MT MIN 321.0 R-I and R-2 lots shall not be further subdivided individually or as a group to increase density. 156. With the formation of the new combined HOA in May of 2008, via deletion of former members of the Phase III area lots ban on further subdivision of oversized lots, substanative and significant changes in proporty rights were made. Now Phase III owners are no longer bound by this restriction with the combined HOA (Per document no. 2300076 - this document forms the entity of the HOA now before the Court). 157. Repealing Phase III HOA's restriction on further subdivsion to increase density, as Phase III owners were previouvsy enttiled to protection from under their original covenant contracts, is a subtanative change to the Phase III covenant contracts that would require repeal in complaince with Article VIII Section I to be a lawfully enacted repeal of the original covenat contract. 158. The repeal of deed restriction described in pargraph 155 is an ammendment of the original coveant contracts that goes beyond the scope of property owner approval for ammendment alleged by the HOA per pargraph 119 above. Page 224 of 270 Page 224 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 1.2 159. Excerpt of Phase 11 HOA covenant contract Exhibit B as follows: 2131569 SholleY Vanor-9ailalln Co W MIBC 240,E0 EXHIBIT B Cattail Creek Subdivision Phase 11 Property Sttbacks Front Side Rear Fronting Yard Yard Yard Block Lot 0 Street Zone Setback Setback Setback. Notes 9 1 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 201 1,3 2 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' 3 3 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 31 20' 3 4 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' 3 5 TBlackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' 3 6 Blackbird Drive _ R-2 20' 5' 20' 3 -- - 7 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 8 Blackbird Drive R-2 201 51 20' 3 9 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S1 20' 3 10 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' F 20' 3 11 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 51 20' _3 12 Blackbird Drive _.— R-2 20' 51 20' 3 ] i Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' 3 160. Some property owners relied on Exhibit B(of doc. No. 2131569) above, in determining their percieved allowable use of land purchased and sold within Cattail Creek Phase II between 2004 and 2008. 161. Exhibit M is an example of how one property owner understood the allowable uses of the land they had purchased and were trying to sell. Property owners who were bound to the original covenants which contained incorrect information were possesing of contractual rights to have knowledge of how, when and why incorrect parts of the contract they were bound to were made. 162. Deletion of Exhibit B from the original Phase 11 covenants (Doc. No. 2131596) during the drafting and adoption of the revised and ammended covenants represents a repeal or ammendment of an aspect of covenant contract such as would require the ammendment or repeal Page 225 of 270 Page 225 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 to be in complaince with Article VITT Section I to be a lawfully enacted ammendment or repeal of the original covenant contract. 163. The deletion described in pargraph 162 is an ammendment of the original covenant contract that goes beyond the scope of property owner approval for ammendment alleged by the HOA per pargraph 119 above. 164. Deletion of Exhibit B from Doc. No. 2131569 and relpacement of Exhibit B from Doc. No. 2121569 with Exhibit B of the revised covenants(document no. 2300076 - this document forms the entity of the HOA now before the Court) represents a correction of misleading information within original covenant contract doe. No 2131569. 165. Regardless of the motivation for the action described in paragraph 164 above, HOA management owed a duty to the property owners to advise them of the erroneous information of the original contract and to follow the appropraite proceedures for ammending the contract to correct the erronious information there in. 166. Exhibit B of the revised covenants (Per document no. 2300076 - this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court) functionally replaces Exhibit B of the Phase IT covenant contract described in paragraph 159 above. Exhibit B of the revised covenant contract is no more legible in the Court House records than it is pasted below. Exhibit B of the revised covenant contract as follows: Page 226 of 270 Page 226 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 40 E }' # 4 f fii9 YEA � •' S ' s M 2.: 5 3 1 j ; lit V) 1 � E k. i € { { Sk'iiDrW 1 i 0.Eck` s t (!1' 777SSS � j ; t E E IN 34,01 �r,��tair� W,st�,��r�.tln't�nt�tac xaa:�tb � 167. Cattail Creek Phase II covenant contract, doe. No. 2131569 is a contract entered into by Peter Thompson where in Peter Thompson had no meaningful choice regarding acceptance of the contract provisions prior to purchasing land within Cattail Creek Phase II {this was a take it or Page 227 of 270 Page 227 of 270 E Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 leave it encumbrance of title at closing) nor was there any opportunity for the Peter Thompson to freely negotiate the terms of the covenant contract prior to or at the time of execution of the land transaction which indirectly bound the Peter Thompson via an encumbrance of title. The actual covenants were not presented at closing by the seller nor has Peter Thompson ever signed any covenants of Cattail Creek Phase II or even the new revised and amended covenants. 168. Peter Thompson became a property owner under the Cattail Creek Phase 11 covenants on February 27th, 2008. Peter Thompson received no notice of meeting to change any covenants nor any notice of substance of any proposed covenant amendment or repeal prior to the recording of document no. 2300076, - this document forms the entity of the Plaintiff now before the Court, on May 15th, 2008. 169. Peter Thompson has had no opportunity to freely negotiate the terms of the revisions covenant contract no. 2300076. This speaking particularly to contract revisions detail in paragraphs 140 thru 168. 170. The inability of any one property owner to change or amend the covenant contracts is proven by the fact that the Developer working with a group of like minded property owners was unable to legally make an apparently innocuous covenant amendment in 2006. The attempted amendment was to simply combine the separate HOA's into one for ease and efficiency of management. It may appear on paper that a given property owner has the ability to negotiate the terms of the covenant contract, but the intractability of the contract is in reality beyond the ability of any given property owner to overcome. 171. Despite the affirmative steps of the HOA in preventing Peter Thompson access to historical information regarding how changes to the original covenant contract came about,per paragraphs 75, 76, 90 and 91, in 2016 Peter Thompson obtained the copies of HOA's past publications that describe certain aspects of the notice of substance of change, meetings and how voting occurred Page 228 of 270 Page 228 of 270 Exhibit 12 iit the st bl3s ri t:a� t[ie ieti#�reiiit I UA.e iIity i Ifigt .tm 49 s OW Ompson', 'P�t�r �r�ias,rn�: ions:�oi��r s�av it�•at-thr�`gtCtii�ts ca►�tecl,iz�this aff d vit ott`tr a to the DA A s 25th PCW..:nOwpsoX . 'zo Se Ud gant jtb Lindko'Scope Roo?IGSCfldttC7i] A. IA JENNIFERSM. . , € t lf.4t AP,4—64 ai Afl E f Page 229 of 270 Page 229 of 270 E x8 t f} I F: L. �'_4� ��- _.l.s,s• _.a!4+E31Yb!!tt A'°— �_ ,�'.._ >r �;",' �"�r ;';;., .f•-.. E ��.d '��}� I 1s € I $ it r�r. •' i 4' n tf..,'f: ci: sx i � i' t� •'p .i P� r��l :�P' '�6 Vt. i 4 �pb�.• ,•� :t,.: '.4:'�-rY'' ?t, =.✓P i.r r I 1 Vim y _' y .x�,_ f,r•'.;. a.:: t;' •.46:, t. is ' - •'.. rr if*1?'.„L.,w•_r,{XhSL�_ ri i `•. ��, '~ �Yt,+� i 3 .:,.. �. :.. ,.._..: is.: • _ i .. -i .:y: T-.-.f-�" 1 .Y ter• ?�.. j f 1� v<LY 1 1 'YI! t - •.ram/{.5 it i I ( i - is ..- � :'. .. '.i• � .. r •r i �V, 31 •...�R�"::i'�-+—.. �•�..i••ti v.�.I�, —"I Y9 5 .'�:_�V M,�f--r�Y'.� .a!_:::�A,_ W Page 230 of 270 Page 230 of 270 Bxhibif 12 Exhibit 12 Exhibit G : ,.,#;ClJi1l_ t,H c.'� SUBDIVISION,lCihJ, r ?, f... Z(?��I. P,�AI-'' AMENDIME.IR�! L�fvS:.\.a. i 1��..\ ..• Ft_i.. :'Its. , `•t'• 5.., ... .,,. .. ._). ..... fl i ..- r-:.i..:..�..a:."- ik "y; y t L iu .. : .. „' N—Y % r f.,i ! .� eFr�•i ..1..._.-._._-.... �,.iv..�._..:.._-..__.._._.n._a,.w...... +,�...., _ y .. ...�:n'�L i5L dntl • i.`'?'_- ' Y ! ^. r I { ._ r-: ki is Ir , , y�r , ,f 5 _ , , i' :_ �' _.y.i_ -?„c'E:'_ 1 i��'i.:,:Il,i_� .i :.PC � �:i�:'s� F:§•.:1:;r t:i•t5 __...-°'{' __— '.).:i'_ -!:�:__ __ _ _- . .... j i::l uti•.... I(c:: °:'° Ii _ _ N i_j,:i.......... '� :S?�.-,,: .ir!„-Y• .23 ...... ,S•1F.3�_s" 5:..5r•. _.......— 5 53�%'-"s2_5'i4,'L'. .��.. S..-)`M1 ..; .-Npa:AU,.:Zc':Y °UR,I,Ct'l•Y tin ,l`i!1)r\. 691 A)[TaEtG!•:nJ.< _1 IIL •. u .v^,.r �•"^.._,.._.;o:.a.sYl el C+e _ __.__.._:.- —_-_— `_---'— \trrs*,H ...... �,10f.%asat':4 ^�^''? �a is k�j � mg, s., " Exhibit f2a ._ �, i �t�f3.zu,�Eaa,tr•+3stn�;nHs� , * r s ',�ssr� � � .ts7't °.v .,r 5 ur-G-,'s-•v"t- :; ,r fs}4 '� _ •s r,1;- r� �i,r� .' ,cs''t'ski'hriz r -r'ie�, ., 1§"� tae+3ca ,�,.-may z r N r ..y-•-,�--t sww+�r�y'r,K�f*.'.�^s+d.::.Z-P.�G,rid1'Y+.55`Y"'�h}s � ��•. 'x3 .�`C,� WIS£kE�CS'.C" �"'#+da•rsi.,,.� �� .r^� �aw.tss>.s�'i,^€'�v��1���i'.�" .^• - :.�. a.m� �.•nzc �a u��',.r -rte�r-;��dx.x Se.�}crd pja s�o�ya G+ §'�t 3hr�^exvrar2gt Wa�py-`f':H€ 'd i . S"4TasYrAkra+.Nsk}sHnd E -j a r t F q xf n .n 2 � , 1L. j r Tom. F`'C �]& Y !! � E , «R"K�.tts.ax a:s nl✓t m n aa:sn i rtY:f:Czl aui•,Wui mt« --.w,a.-. fi 4•-'-.... .5:.. _ �__ mAL VC €Y = itMT r URI x.nnm e Z i - s � - a a �s Y ,�%n� _ nr�•�--a� �t �r.�v�� } Y `m•at•a t .. .a>ta •S{' 'r • �1,f .,a, --- - -_.-�;ti.o:..b.l..-_—_.___i.oft�•y♦ .i' �, `� � +.\' SR; �S 1.9C '__ -t„tr—�r.�-'.....hMl+...�i••___Ma•__■ y, __.Yr:f�___•� -r ^ _i a1 �,�' SPi�4 `J'•fi y .' Y ^,: 4 } i. ii q `Y ♦ :_nw S- e;s.! y -S I--i'" .c 1m'c��IL i A—_ram .I:.a.sJ• jVM "— 1.,:[::4• ,.O" ,� '9`�¢`4 J ¢Y 3� •�nl -s"I .. ... gum i's S W 3 ♦:.,: .. 3 sr..• x< ora. .. asf,. �•� 4II � T W.. X4.plm XT$Q t ii.»a ••: BLS law Ali wit 05 t : .. IF - •. - «�' `: - '� E� �� �`'• + :.�'• fir. , 3;, g «ttta t:tna o'±m ar ea•v: •J � r 3SVHd ens A33do -iidlldo a gg ' jlzs p€ $Eax of Y 3q t � ro As As 8 _ z€ wf so .4.:,�:�� -�!`� _ 5s6S�.5y'- .���.• }- s3s�fB�ci$..i' ': `' is ys� 8_� .•',.,iIt �.1 a a: gaF Pam+ g _g"g- _# g- B$ � ' v * [p5g[4 r s C�,l6$ x E. 5 u4�33 F a s•.g�. t is's s � � �. �g�ki r� i eX EEC x�xs ggx€ g .gg� _{gde .€ x.katE z s a ig t i E e ;r•6p� 4 s` R 3 4�£YYg .i �.. gg ^I I: € b £3� � xx I � r. P' ¢5 tS. 45^�iA Fg da�x v€ A. 5�y?$' S� ' ppp j"3cP= 9:K �Sy!# x�x ``J �F�n§�.4 � .; Y' �t iz ig•3�`" t, Y Xhl a P:g ' F F 3 ixra ^b s6Y !kka �N°'$ z 3Se iF C .' 9x yy s f fc - 56yi 7E y s a 5t c-, �..; �� :I •E• � ' i% t'�;�' t`-� i ${a• S.s`� a pg3 F5 �a. ° rsF k 'Yg LJF.fl�,3 j 4 i - Vl 1 d 3 TIN � S . �e mim, CA It 14 94 call 0 MIT 23 y3 - � r.ne�aen e.a 4 e .-_........_._ ......_....... :E 41 IT s e y '"I � ' �! �q �S F► ' � J07 ,'s�!`� . � y11oy, . `\ \y �� ,� '�"-iuo. ,� ��i4 r 1 , or ! a F ---re[e��,-----'--avurr$�n�a�ru•�,�� R j1 S I y t y it ` ._._..-._..._..._._.�...._.__.__.�..._.____ ---- mrtwvo Aral wAomt C .-- 692--r ez S dZ 'Hd >i-ndo --Iblldo f y PA a a a LA ro all k � bH���ag� ° d�� �� �A J �°� 9 I s g Hj.Vyy �ry4 lMl aq 5 Jill �r� 6 6-� -• r�' MT 11 NO as inn RF MAV � yy o� � Pia 55 gg .¢§ pp f ggqq y Ail 4J Qu a#~# F yg y �. ems,#� ■$ �Eo,§9 a. RS 4- i Ag tlq .yyE 8 �.✓5 `I�4c "'�$ .tl re'.c ro, gs + 1 `eb.`.J7 c�•$$ a_ '@ vt � S g 9 8 � Ana -' ra._ 4, t €�s�H ie 8y49�p� a y•i It pe 4.111 g F Re fill $ a k $ gg Y 5 ,q$,�a �€",g' g� �gn ghf g a �,� as _bg fssx � p p0j# �ayze�mba .1i H tA� $$ ¢° A#'C' a g� �< � �C s H g $ I All, 91 jig f S @ ti 8xsbs�9a ia�aa# e°€e$s�3€ ?Eso s � 6 -(' 8'Z '9 VZ Hd 8nS ���80 �IdlldD Exhibit 12 Exhibit M : Exhibit 12 ALL FIELDS CUSTOMIZABLE 2 MIS# 142253 Acreage -1 Acre Status Expired Water City Type SUBDIVISION LOT Horse Not Allowed Address TBD BLACKBIRD DR Wtr Amen Yes Address 2 LOT 3 BLOCK 9 CATTAIL SUB Zoning R2-Residential 2-household, City BOZEMAN Medium Density State MT zip 59718 Area Boz N ofMain/E of191h 1 NE Class LAND Asking Price $117,000 Sale/Rent For Sale GENERAL Number Of Acres 0.2630 Price Per Acre 444866,92 Apx Lot Sz .263 Subdiv. Cattail Creek Directions Cattail St,Left on Blackbird Or Zoning District yes Covenant yes Approx SgFt 11455 Price per SgFt %21 Days On Market 172 FEATURES WATER AMENITIES Stream FINANCIAL A x Tax$ 466.3tl ___.. ._. . . ---___-_- P Tax Year 2006 PUBLIC INFORMATION Ideal building tot that backs to open space and creek.Close to the park,with beautiful mountain vews and an in-town setting,this 11,455+!-SF lot is hard to b eat! ADDITIONAL PICTURES DISCLAIMER Information provided by Galia6n Association of REALTORS/Southwest Montana MLS is compiled from miscellaneous sources.Neither the Association, listing brokers,agents or subagents are responsible for its accuracy.MLS users should be advised and should advise prospective purchasers to verify all information in regard to the property by their own independent investigation prior to submitting an offer to purchase the property.Copyright 2007 Southwest Montana MLS. Page 238 of 270 Page 238 of 270 Exhibit N Exhibit 12 231�� Exhibit .12 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1,�2, }s "a atolls v.no.-aailsttn CO MT rfrao 240,00 IA.H1I.rr B Cattail Creek Subdivision Please It Property Setbacks Prot Side Rear Fronting Yard 'Yard Yard Block Lot 0 Street Zone Setback Setback Setback Notes 9 1 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' 1,3 2 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' _3_ 3 Blackbird Drive R-2 29 5' 20' 3 4 Blackbird Drive R 2 29 5' 20' 3 5 Blackbird Drive R 2 20, 5' 20' 3 6 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' S' 20' 3 7 Blackbird Drive R-2 29 ~5' 20' 3 8 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20, 3 9 Blackbird Drive R 2 20' 5' _ 20' 3 10 Blackbird Drive R-2 20' 5' 20' 3� 11 Blackbird Drive R-2 20, 5' 20, 3 12 Blackbird Drive R 2 20' Y 29 _ 3 13 Blackbird Drive R 2 20' 51 29 3 �14 Blackbird Drive R-3A 20' 5' 29 1,3 10 1 Typlia Court R-3 20' 5' _ 25' l 2 3 ha Court R-3 20' 5' 25' 1 3 Cattail Street R-3 20` 5' 25, --- 4 Cattail Street R-3 29 5' 1 25' 1 i1 1 Fen Way R-3 20' 5' 25' 1,4 2 Fen Way R 3 20' 5' 25' 4 3 Fen Way R-3 20' 5' 25, 4 4 Fen Way R-3 29 5' 25' 4 5 Fen Wa R-3 20' S' 25' 1,4 12 1 Fen Way R 3 20' 5' 25' 1,4 2 Fen;Wa R-3 20' 5' 25' 4 3 Fen W a-X R 3 29 5 25' 4 4 Fen Way R-3 20, S' 25` 4 13 1 Catron Street R-3 20' 5' 20' 1 2 Catron Street >R-3 20' 5' 20' 3 Catron Street R-3 20' 5' 21Y 4 Catron Street R 3 20' S' 29 5 Catron Street R 3 20' S' 20' b Catron Street R-3 20' 1 S' 1 20` l Page 239 of 270 Page 239 of 270 _..._....... ......._..._......_..._......_._...._...._ .._........._....... ....................... Untitled DoErnhibit 12 litip://�vww.gailatinidx.com/printable fly w.O 4_ Exhibit 0 . ( mtskyrealty@aol.corn MLS# 135 502 Asking Price: $1,19,000 Class: Land Type: Bldg Lot Under I Acre No Status: Active Acres: n/a Available Lot Size: n/a Iinrse: Not Allowed At1-4 Tnis TimeWater., City Water Arden.: Yes Forest: No Moblie/Menu/Mod.: Not Allbwed Topography: n/a Zoningg Other,Res Sudditrislon: Cattail Creek Address: L7 B§6Will Creek Blackbird City: Bozeman State; MT Ept 5571$ Description RARE FIND. LARGE CITY LOT LOCATED ON THE'RARK.CI7EEK;WXWNG..1rfW S...AND i?ONp HACK UP TO THE LOT. GREAT MOUNTAIN VIEWS.GREAT LOCATION. Domestic Water: Road; telephone:- City Paved -To Lot Electricity: Sewer: view: - To Lot -City -View Of Mrits Natural Gas: -Pond/lake -Available Search results are produced..through the Southwest Montana Listingervlce, Inc. All information is provided exclusively for consumers'personal;.no.wcommercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective:properties consumem.may ba interested In purchasing. Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed and should.be.independ.Ondy.verified. Data updated nightly. n Southwest Montana Multiple Listing Service, Inc IbX by_L'evado.:Technalo�ies Listing courtesy of., COLDWELL.BANKER RCI RLTY KADE EMBRY .2621 COLLEGE BOZEMAN,50718 Page 240 of 270 Page 240 of 270 I al'i $/I9/�007.1:22 PM Exhibit 12 Exhibit P : Exhibit 12 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3486 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,ADOPTING A NEW GROWTH POLICY FOR THE BOZEMAN PLANNING AREA KNOWN AS THE SOZEMAN 2020 COMMUNITY PLAN, WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has established a Planning Board pursuant to Section 76-1-101, MCA, and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana requested the Planning Board to undertake the preparation of a growth policy for the City of Bozeman, and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board caused to be conducted extensive forums for public participation to identify areas of community concern, and WHEREAS the City of Bozeman Planning Board has prepared a new growth policy designated as the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan to supercede the 1983 Bozeman Area Master Plan and the 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has prepared the now growth policy pursuant to the requirements for growth policies established by Section 76-1-601, MCA; and WHEREAS,the Planning Board conducted three public hearings on the proposed new growth policy,as required by Section 76-1-602, MCA,on April 10, 2001,April 12, 2001 and May 17, 2001, and considered the recommendations and suggestions elicited at said hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board found that with amendments the proposed growth policy constitutes an improvement to the 1983 Master Plan and 1990 Master Plan Update and complies with the requirements of state law, and WHEREAS, subsequent to its public hearings, the Planning Board, by Resolution, recommended adoption of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan with accompanying amendments as the City's official growth policy; and WHEREAS, the City Commission held a public hearing on September 10, 2001 for the purpose of receiving public testimony regarding the Planning Board's recommended draft of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it necessary for the purpose of updating the Community Plan and complying with the content requirements of growth policies established by Section 76-1-601, MCA, to adopt a new growth policy; and WHEREAS, the City Commission found that with amendments the proposed growth policy constitutes an improvement to the 1983 Master Plan and 1990 Master Plan Update and complies with the requirements of state law, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, that: Section 1 That the growth policy for the Bozeman Planning Area as prepared and submitted by the Bozeman City Planning Board by that document designated Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, as amended by the Planning Board by Resolution No. P-9851, which Resolution by reference is made a part hereof and incorporated herein, and as further amended by the City Commission on September 10, 2001, and as further amended by the City Commission on October 15, 2001, said amendments being set forth in the document, be and is hereby adopted as the Growth Policy for the Bozeman Planning Area pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA; Page 241 of 270 Page 241 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit p ; Exhibit 12 Section 2 That the attached maps, including the official Community Plan Land Use Map, plans, and Policies, as currently adopted and as amended from time to time,together with all matters and things shown on such maps and articulated in such plans and policies, are adopted and approved, incorporated herein and made a part hereof and collectively shall constitute the official Growth Policy. Directive. Section 3 That staff is directed to prepare a presentation draft of the adopted text and map to facilitate the use of this growth policy by the public. Severabiiity. Section 4 If any provisions of this growth policy or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this growth policy which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this and, the provisions of this growth policy are declared to be severable. Section 5 Savings Provision. This growth policy does not affect the rights of duties that matured, penalties and assessments that were incurred or proceedings that began before the effective date of this resolution. The amendment of any map, plan,or policy which has heretofore been adopted and incorporated into the official Growth Policy, or the adoption of any subsequent map, plan, or policy, to the extent inconsistent or in conflict with the official Growth Policy,shall not operate as an amendment, repeal, or partial repeal of the official Growth Policy. Effective Date. Section 6 This growth policy shall be in full force and effect upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 22nd day of October 2001. ATTEST: IVIAKUA B. YOUNGIVIAN, Mayor R ! L. SULLIVAIV Clerk of the Commission APPROV S TO ORM: J. L WE City Attor y 2 Page 242 of 270 Page 242 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit Q : Exhibit 12 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3630 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ESTABLISHING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY FOR THE CITY OF BOZEMAN AND SUPERSEDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3037. WHEREAS, the City Commission did, on the 19th of December 1994, adopt Commission Resolution No. 3037, establishing an affordable housing policy, based on the recommendations of its Bozeman Housing Task Force; and WHEREAS,the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board identified the need to amend the affordable housing policy to more accurately reflect current needs; and WHEREAS,the City of Bozeman entered into an agreement with Bay Area Economics to conduct a study and submit recommendations for a new affordable housing policy; and WHEREAS, Bay Area Economics submitted its recommendations to the City of Bozeman in May 2003-, and WHEREAS, the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board subsequently modified those recommendations to more accurately reflect the community needs; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, at its meeting on September 8, 2003, indicated general support for the recommended policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, that the Commission hereby adopts the Affordable housing Strategies, dated September 22, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and by this reference made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana,at a regular session thereof held on the 22nd day of September 2003, ATT ST; 4 STEVEN R. K1RC HO yor C. R I L. S L Clerk of the Commission APP D A M: X7 PAIKJ7LU City Attorne Page 243 of 270 Page 243 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12 Exhibit "A" AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIES September 22, 2003 Strategy 1. Housing Affordability Guidelines 1. The City will use the HUD Gallatin County Area Median Income (AMI) or, if supplied, the HUD City of Bozeman Area Median Income(AMI). 2. Using HUD definitions, households shall pay no more than 30% of their gross annual income towards their housing payment. 3. Bozeman's Standard Housing Affordability Income Guidelines for homeowners are 61-100% of the AMI. 4. Bozeman's Standard Housing Affordability Income Guidelines for renters are 40% to 60% of the AMI, Strategy 11. Regulatory and Process Reforms 1. Major site plans with no deviations can be approved by City planning staff. 2. Concurrent development of infrastructure and housing should be allowed for affordable housing in appropriate situations. 3. Whenever practical, all City Departments will give priority to projects that exceed affordability requirements. 4. As opportunities arise, City Staff will explore ways to reduce development costs without compromising the livability and quality of the neighborhood. 5. The City will continue to work with the legislature to revise subdivision guidelines to encourage more dense development. 6. The City will develop systems to provide details on types of units being developed. Information gathered shall include inventorying vacant land, existing housing and buildings, and tracking new subdivisions in order to provide market information. 7. The City will invite the business/building community to suggest possible additional regulatory and process reforms and streamlining that would promote construction and rehab of affordable housing. Strategy 111. Restricted Size Lots (RSL) & Restricted Size Units (RSU) 1. As stated in the 2020 Plan, every residential annexation into the City of Bozeman of five acres or more, that is not zoned as Residential Suburban shall have a minimum net acreage density of 6-8 units when subdivided_ 2. Every residential annexation of five acres or more that is not zoned as Residential Suburban shall have a minimum of 10% of the buildable net acreage dedicated to Restricted Size Lots(RSL)that are 4,996-ta not greater than 5,000 square feet for single farrtilq household detached (SFB SHD)and 2,500-to 3,000 for single fatnt}y household attached (ASF SHA) units when subdivided. The RSL designation shall be recorded with on the final subdivision plat. 3. The total floor area of the unit built on an RSL (minus the garage) shall not exceed a ratio of 1:3.3. Units built on RSLs shall be known as Restricted Size Units(RSU). Example if the lot is 4,000 square feet the square footage of the house can not exceed 1212, or a ratio of 1 square foot of floor area per every 3.3 feet of lot. 4. In lieu of designating the required number of RSL for market sale with the final plat, the owner may provide a donation by fee-simple transfer of title of buildable demome dC-;reievVd, RSLs to the City, on a one donated for H"e required basis with 1 fee simple transfer RSL being equivalent to 3 for market sale RSLs. The City will utilize donated RSLs or the proceeds of sales only for affordable housing. 5. In lieu of designating RSLs within the stibdivision being amnexed-, annexed land being subdivided the owner may designate off-site comparable RSLS-Oft Page 244 of 270 A-1 Page 244 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit Q ' Exhibit 12 a one required for ome-rapplae.',. basis at a ratio of 1:1. The subdivision containing the off-site fee simple transfer RSLs cannot be comprised of more than 50% RSLs without, prior City Commission approval. The off-site fee simple transfer RSL shall be established and transferred to the City not later than the time of final plat approval of the subdivision responsible for creating the fee simple transfer RSL. 6. Within multi-household zoning districts and with approval from the City Commission, the area required for RSLs may be assembled into larger lots to allow construction of affordable housing complexes. 67. At residential annexation,in lieu of supplying the required number of RSLs,the owner may pay a "cash in lieu" fee to the City. The payment shall be calculated as the appraised value per square foot of developed land within that specific subdivision at the time of final plat approval rrmftspFied by��3; 2 { haveraged size of a GFA multiplied by the un-be, %Jl I%-,%lull%-,%A I The cost per square foot shall a multiplied by 5,000 in single household districts and by 3,000 in multi-household districts for each required RSL. The appraisal cost shall be borne by the owner of the land being subdivided. The City will use payments in lieu of RSLs only for affordable housing. -78. City staff will give high priority to ensuring that RSL/RSU language Is included in the Unified Development Ordinance as soon as possible in autumn 2003. This language will be subject to the sunset clause described in Strategy IX. Strategy IV. Nome Ownership Program 1. The City shall cause to be developed a down payment assistance program for home purchasers whose household income meets Bozeman's Standard Housing Affordability Income Guidelines. 2. The down payment assistance program shall include components of home ownership education and counseling, information on mortgage products and affordable housing assistance programs, and referrals to developers of RSU. 3. Families who meet the City's Standard Housing Affordability Income Guidelines, have completed the down payment assistance program, and qualify for a Class A Mortgage shall be known as target income purchasers. 4. Households whose income is below Standard. Housing Affordability Income Guidelines, but meet all the other criteria of a target income purchaser, may be considered for down payment assistance; however, the households must have additional financial assistance from alternate sources so that the amount of the City's down payment assistance does not exceed the amount generally supplied to target income purchasers. 5. The City shall develop a system to track RSL and building permits for RSU so that target income purchasers can be notified when units are being developed. 6. During the construction process, builders of RSU will give priority to target Income purchasers who qualify to purchase the home. 7, The down payment assistance program will work with local lenders and state, federal and private affordable housing programs to develop a variety of home ownership options and information packets for interested parties. Strategy V. "Very Low-income Units"Development Incentives 1. "Very low-income" is defined as housing that is affordable to households whose income is below the City's adopted Standard Housing Affordability Income Guidelines. Incentive developed housing is affordable to households whose gross annual income is below 60% of the AMl for for-sale-homes or 40% of the AMI for rentals. 2. Conditional upon prior City Commission approval and funding availability, an affordable housing developer may enter Into an agreement with the City to receive building permit fee waivers, waiver of other City fees, impact fee reimbursement, and/nor financial assistance In exchange for developing very tow--income units. The impact fuse reimbursements,fee waivers, and financial assistance shall collectively be referred to as "Housing Development Incentives." Page 245 of 270 A-2 Page 245 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit Q ' Exhibit 12 3. Although Strategy V is not limited to affordable housing developments, the Housing Development Incentives will need to be combined with another subsidy program in order to achieve affordability for very low-income households. 4. The City will reimburse the developer for the agreed upon amount of Housing Development Incentives upon occupancy of the very low income units and eligibility verification of the unit and occupant. 5. The affordability period for very low-income units shall be the greater of 20 years or, if the owner is participating in another public or private entity's housing program, the guidelines of that entity's program. 6. For-sale very low-income houses shall be tracked with a deed restriction. 7. Very low-income rentals shall be tracked through the City's property inventory system recommended in Strategy Il, 8. The owners of very low-income rentals will annually submit eligibility along with a $25 fee per unit to the monitoring agency. If the information is available from another monitoring source, the owner can substitute that entity's monitoring certification and pay no fee. 9. For-sale, very low-income units shall have the subsidy forgiven at the rate of 1/20th annually. If the home is resold prior to the 20th year the owner shall repay apro-ration of the subsidy to the City's affordable housing fund. 10. One and two bedroom units that are affordable to persons below 40% of the AMI shall be reimbursed at a rate of 100% of the Housing Development Incentives per qualifying unit. 11. Three and four bedroom, two bathroom units that are affordable to persons below 40% of the AMI, shall be reimbursed at a rate of 150% of the Housing Development Incentives per qualifying unit. 12. For units affordable to person below 30% of the AMI, Housing Development Incentives will be doubled. 13. No more than 50% of the units in a development may receive Housing Development Incentives. Strategy Vl, Additional Financial Contributions 1. Alternative or additional financial incentives to for-profit and nonprofit affordable housing developers would be on a case by case basis as recommended by the CAHAB and approved by the City. Examples would be land grants, low-interest loans, property tax abatement, and or infrastructure assistance. 2. The City will complete legal research to determine if property tax abatement is allowed for affordable housing projects under State law. If so, the City will make any changes necessary to local laws to permit this option to be made available. 3. The City will welcome any financial data made available by for-proflt and non- profit affordable housing developers that will help the City determine the amount of financial Incentives/assistance needed to make it possible for the private market to respond to the City's high-priority housing needs. Strategy V►l. City Participation 1. The City of Bozeman will dedicate a minimum of $200,000 annually to the Community Affordable Housing Fund. 2. To assist with the annual affordable housing funding commitment,the City will dedicate at least 50% of economic development impact fees collected from Big Box stores to the Community Affordable Housing Fund, Strategy Vill. City Land 1. Should the City receive property of 10 acres or more not earmarked for another use, a priority for the use of the property shall be a model subdivision designed to showcase the development,goals of the 2020 plan. Page 246 of 270 A-3 Page 246 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit Q Exhibit 12 Strategy IX Biennial Review, Sunset Provision 1. Biennally after adoption,the CAHAB,in conjunction with City staff, shall review the City's affordable housing priorities and strategies and make recommendations to the Commission as necessary to meet the City's affordable housing needs and goals, as identified in the 202& P4an City's adopted growth policy, the 2003 Housing Needs Assessment, and any subsequent needs assessments prepared for the City. 2. A sunset clause will be included in ordinances and code revisions adopted to implement strategies II and III to ensure mandatory review and timely revision of housing policies in response to changing housing needs. (The sunset clause should specify a five-year period or an alternate length of time to be determined through discussion among City staff,the City Commission,and the CAHAB, with public input from the building industry and other interested organizations.) Strategy X. Business Plan, Long-term funding Stream 1. Upon City adoption of Affordable Housing Strategies and ordinances, the CAHAB will work with City staff to complete a business plan regarding annual and five-year budget needs; funding sources (grants, big box fund, general fund, housing loan repayments, etc.); staffing; and so forth. 2. The CAHAB will work with City staff, the City Commission, and interested organizations to create a reliable long-term funding stream for the Affordable Housing Fund,to ensure a base of predictable funding for the first-time home buyers' program and for rental housing. One intent will be to strive to reduce the level of City General Fund commitment necessary to maintain the City's affordable housing programs through diversification of funding sources and, if possible, eventual endowment of the Housing Fund. 3. The City, in cooperation with other interested organizations, will aggressively pursue grants to help with affordable housing. StrategyXl. Additional Potential Actions for Research and Consideration 1. The City will review the purposes of the Design Review Board and consider the advantages and disadvantages of redefining its purposes—such as shifting its development review responsibilities to staff—or eliminating the board. If the City chooses to redefine the role of the DRB, it will not eliminate DRB development review only for affordable housing projects, which need to receive the same degree of review as all housing projects. 2. The City will consider a guaranteed timeframe for review and approval of affordable housing projects. 3. The CAHAB,in cooperation with City staff,will assess establishing a residency requirement for the home buyers'program,and a possible provision regarding full-time students, and make a recommendation to the City Commission. 4. The City will research the legality of selling parcels of long-unused, perhaps impractically located or sized parkland, or of building affordable housing on them. 5. The City, in cooperation with any interested local organizations, will consider developing a kiosk or referral service for affordable units to make it easy for very low-income and low-income residents to find housing in their price range without developers of this housing needing to spend significant sums on marketing. Page 247 of 270 A-4 Page 247 of 270 ...F Exhibit 1:2 Exhibit R : Exhibit 12 City of Bou :201E Q1iv... 5.#;Ste 2 .*-PQ Bax 123a 13oxeman;Atl'C 6977'1-1230 PW 06-552.2931 Fl):'406.582.2256 f3t11i.1)ilY;:iN16'>_'C'[lC5►y.Gl1\4"iCCY.�!( May 20, 2011 Certified totter,iVta0.1ber 70..071490000375897259 Peter Thompson 1627 VV. Main St. Su te:l'S.*... .Bozeman, Mt. 59715 Re:Building Per milt#08-7435 at:2986.i3ia:ckbird Dr. The purpose of.this letter is to advise youtht.tulding permit;#{t0-7435 expired on August 24, 010, due to inactivity on the protect You ara:.further advised that the tempo.raryi..certificate of occupancy issued for the:baserrtert.has boe h.revakd. yirt cal. This*tetter:shalf.i erve as ':N :T i t !~'!Vt . (t1C i[il t f`tlie Admi:rtWiitive Rittes of Montana, Bozeman Muriicipai Cado:and Sts;t adap:ked 20q :Bttildrrt na, the € , The 2006 International Resider tiaf Cie :Sect�oFn ::R1Q7 Te.mpatary Btrtaatt�res 'and Uses, R 107.1, states: t he burrdrng c�fr=iclaI as authp dzerd tc�.r' sria permt;°for tempitirary sfructures and temporary.uses. Such permits shall be limited d"s to time df'selyiee, trt shall.'..not,be permitted for more than 980 days. Tfie,builclirig oi`fic l is ahth tri end.to.grant e;xtensions':tai-demobstrated cause: The 2006 International Restden'8di- 'QNe Secticart: :Ri . Certifiratb ;ef ..Oacupancy, R1 t0.5 Revottign; states: T#ie. bultcling. :.cifficial shelf,: fin. wrJfng; .suspend ore.revoke a certificate of oceuliaricy issued under the.provisions af,this code:wherevei` in error, or on the basis of irrcvrrect h7fi�rmat on sc�0.4 Cl,: ar where tt.,%s d termfrted;tl�lsi:.the building or structure or potion th,erof/s.irt.vlala#fort.al arty oro'ir?ance or're lotion Ar arry of the.provtsrorts of this code. This letter serves as a:notice the:j.8G.days have passed, therefore the certificate of occupancy issued for the basement has been rivbked. The last.approved inspection for the house was on Fe'brua"ry 26, 2010;which means permit#08- 7435 has:expired. Section 15.02.020 of the Administrative. Rules. of Montana and Section 105.5 of the 2006 International Residential Code states. "Fver Permit issued shall became invalid it; the work authorized by such pert ib:sustiended.dr abr rrdoried fo►'.a."POW ref 1 0 days after the time the work is commenced. Page 248 of 270 Page 248 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit R : Exhibit 12 8azeman Mupieipai Dade .> drta rt sttative,:R fles' if:.. ntana; 1 2 Q.; 4, C- ;:states; li ordor to rer� v. , of r�:on' ti rpmadpe'mit. a)m6w orrrrit.sh 11 first die:obtained d: he fde#1ie►ef�?re shall be:�ah�=Yi l th�a rrra tr t.r + ulr fad&new:p�rr�1 for.$r 0 work, pr v►�led no ohanges have b.e ri rrtPRO..or:�ill be Made- #pia orr�rn�t plant.and spe�ifl�atlar�s=tar.ai�ch w�r�€,ai�d provided furti,� r'.th t"scloh susp n l n.'.�zr'ab r dt�nMont hay rit�t exce+�d' d prre year: B z 66 , 1 A .Ofl.Vai s • eriini ats nar a In pratat i #o renew acllon err a:p tn7r`t.after.exp ratten, �ex�eedin�:or�$year}the peir)-rit:tee shall pay a new full permit t'ea:. since.:tl�e'etslrtf:on.:: +a ici; :dcnv;; r:the :'te+ renev+r permit`#t3£ 73i 'is ori '-iia1f the.Omount, Which equals The:MOW it s rtt t re eivoci e::fi it . s 04.. or a Bert has#e 1 occupancy,:therefore use f`ar .s�f�ra9e; :wf :.4ny kEr�d xn #he•.:h+ . ts. a vi latk of th- Sozama Mt i icipa.l _ e and Aministrative: lulus:of`.i�llvrtar�iai : : fan e f`ti Bate of 7. . , } t i taftce of aupef t pepfat �nYos rna. r r to. e�til ate o€f,t cc ipa tcy psingr:i t e�3 ��fl :: ildirrg ln�pp�tor, a rnsperzti6n fee shall b:a s s$d ayalrts# .the p permit.- such;fees are..based fatr:th$a ra>time exdend d, * ItTp#00y.the Building.inspactors..ff�tal iiouriy r.'ate phis:addifiomi f .bra..Vie, d_t'lp:Al t�i�tts#��a Odor:to.any. fu #1_er in pe tirsn bi frig an d by the burldmg lnspe t r° ;° t 8I#e, 7 ra tnspe tion fee pis�to lie based on; ;rritn�rntrr tlrie.a atrr . rhtah is7x:Ot .,eri:hour,•. gttatin ; a0:t31J The:Git °of:l p meh.'rnipul :#il e Q : ahte this;matter as Gaon a possible Y our cooperatim is: greatly gppreciet s , R*; : q'.y04.it tar,f�fl i y,Jurfe, 3 Q11. t ret7ew pf rmi##138-743 ; Faliur to nomply by June b,' ITI(wIli:fot'dlt; uCt1 assessed the reii swai afi: srr }#Oa tFre::: uiid n�j'd visi n'_wiI .'.grant O c a:s to cam fete thie:'ht�.osi�,° :I$coritl o..>e.Co�P4 •-oli:0.:a rr�rtt'af�:s�.i moVe tiii 'kia' ri�eht'kitc ien. Th k:you ier Your,rreri fi etkeh a.n:tQ.=t i i'atll� �'PiDja Code>'En(6-.—ment•bM.,. �Oulltlifa Ifs etiori:f i r �pyi .B.ts�''1"2is ,,',Ghie..D.uiici, cli�l;' Page 249 of 270 Page 249 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit S Exhibit 12 t�IC'Cllfve 5treI;.STIrI$ I"Q B.ax 1230 Bozeman i1 T 59771-1230 i�fe&W.,"(d06)5824375 :. i=a�x;(406) 5s2-2256 June 9,2011 Peter Thompson,Property Owner: 2988 Blackbird Drive Bozeman,MT 5971.8 RE: Building.Permit Number M7435: 2988 Blackbird give The purpose of this letter Kto:outiirie and striks?.°a:n al-gym t b_.tWeen P te07h:,pi r tl.the City of Bozeman Building Division which will aildw'safe O.cctip ricy:c�f:a b-aSerrierit duvelifng:attic toeaterl under a new house that Is currently under Construction d' 40e flrtal c:6i 0t�ctiari phases.;o# h t.64 elfirig which is located at the above referenced address. Our intention is to work:with tfie.property owner in:ihO attempt to approve a:temporary.occupancy.of dwelfigunfandegarae a IRC Seatfon..R110A Temporary o~rupaq.cthebasement i which states, "The building.bfficial is authorized to issue a:arempararyr-certr'fichte o}occupancy bejgte the completion of the entire work+covered by the permit,provided thatsurh prarflon ar pgretairs shall.be occupied safely: The building officialsh011set a time penod during which the temoordtycertifieate of occupancy is.valid. Please be advised that at.this time.building permit#08-7435 is expired and,that no oCCupanGy or use of any kind is currently approved for the'structure; Because the above fefotohc structure is=stiff under c'onstruc-tio.W it is.currentiy deeiiied to be unsafe and inappropriate for any use or occupancy: IBC Section 116.1 Conditions states,Nstructures Or exlstlrrg`equIpment that are or hereafter become unsafe,insanitary or deficient betcruse of.intarttequgtg_..Bans of'egressfaciiit es,inadequate tfgiit and ventilation, or which constitute a fire hprard,ar. ur .otherwise danger rxs to icrrxran 1ifi or the public welfare, or that ifivoluieal r ipopstrcam ry or'Tnodequrtte malnte ranee, shall be deemed an unsafe condition. Unsafe structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe, asthe buiidirtg. official deems necessary and as provided f'arin'tliis.section " Due to the UALISual Arid ekWuatitrg:r rduthstahc s lnvaIving this projectfAhe buildin .division is prepared!o service the:expired hviftllri : errn(t for a * lod r�118 months:{l)tcemO,0 20 10131 providing all of the fblliiwlrig`cartdti;6if.5 ate met. The:Striudure; 1. The living area roust bL;�;compietdly-separated`komt any areas still under construction by a fuff one hour fire rated ass�Maiy. 2: The regiiired..exit:f o.m tl'e.*I'vin$`aroa mint... .dire. ,y to:the exterior of the:structure.and may not pass thrdOo atfy at. r at: re tlli uit tler;b strilclkio'n Page 1 of 3 Page 250 of 270 Page 250 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit s Exhibit .12 : .. Aii r+ quire�d 1>rnake detecttot` in all areas f3ftM stru�tpre,lriclu. lq arewsstill.under .F eonstructif3rr,rnust ibe interconnected and tally operatlt�na#, 4. �#o storage cif any kind uthfrr than fr+5nstru #pr►materials we i eperrnitted In any area of the stwcturf`that has not en pmple d and passa�l the:regfiir i.fina!in.spection... 5.. The garage may be cgrsrplete and LE5l Ll'.O tore_ rsc�n l:iee'rrisnrrt t�sfdered to be Gorrstructiorr tneterfais A#uli ene hfyr fira:separatinn,t�f.tweeri"thr;.garage and tine rest of the strtiCtfr,:fw:and a°ffnal risplrctin of tle garge�by tti builtl#nfivislc�r►rVill 13e'required prior to. t# o:,gorage':_ttiefng tfloi 1 f6wan storge,,Ou.rposes:. .. ampEete;all.porr cfi ins t s it tng frOM V k.-Osite:ipspeciian vhi h'occurrec3:yin ur e:$; 20 . that was:cOii l.ucted.by Paula ProjOe and TIM cGough 6.", wia+ hid carrectlon list). All i tl a aliove:+votidltitzn must '1t1 t rw later than -O T66 Plart=��. ;, 1, pYt�v de;a:revised a5 built- plans.: Z Opt.... the hpose anti ONO* that iricartiorafes'a revisions and any.deviatfc�i'Ordrri>the origin Al approved set of pl ns4. +: AIi.Chafges to thela�t may tie hartci drawn but mast be.dr0vvn try the same scale as.the a.in:pi�A• O C aitd.i st s+ fully-di ensioned. There.v�il1 be r�'•red Ines"r�tt.tlr�revised pla:ps:and°all rovislnns and deviations from the orig#rial. 0h$m t be°clearly ld ntlfle�d a�n theIn'ew:rf?vise ::plans.ey friauding tlia: areawhere.tt+e f Mange ours A n rratiV f xpia ning the�I,a.nge may.alsa. a requ t'ed:. 1 he rfsvl ed.plan 1.shall Inrld complete plans,W. any destks that-will l�e'atts shed to the dVveping.The i�eclC;`plahs lust ln�l,�ide • ltti.:accurate:;a�i : :u11 :d m nsioi ed iacat n all lho l e;piuii • A setfifati i�retntif�g:fram tlte:founda,idlh tf;the;tt p.of xhe bar�draiis that irJentifies all structurakon1panents.of..the d.ack;ln i,[acilri tl e.fp.0 d tici ti.. ttall':fir. :1:::struciiat ciiiirii iruEucliil foundatirf t pest,fast tri:bearri;bean to floor sistsj;-flaor jafsts to`led er 4edge'to-lia.use,and safety�railitzgs.ta the deck A build ing divisiaii plan t eviev'fr the nevi`" s.6uilt?'set.;ofplans;i5.required;Tile fee fvr that reuie>+±i w1, Ise�iculated.On an itrs rly i as bes fl on ha.bf�ildii g divislo'n hourly rate of$7S per hour. d; Prauide turret t.mag:addr ss lind pl pt� :n:ljr!!l er t 'updwe t uilding pei snit info. Ali of the.ai vst r'r►�dittrans t at Vie,m #�ri r lto otrdu ting any further inspect#ons o `thls:'OvtJddj:b0t-nO.laterthan W'�ili l:. 6t ,. : r"uture lnSOO. iof; 1: Eden.t li�tiglt'the building:pei'mit;t axp i `all::t+e# i:red r`spec#ion$Wjll°be:cond ted ai d flotumented by the l:u�ldmg'i i+fi$Ion as if'the boil ing:permit vats varIi+d ffar a..perlod o.111 months. whi .e.guates:tptacerrfber2t ,. :, willeired.f.tthb.rtairdocafo � !red pec2 inspf can feetiest rauntons� . s expired t wilding perinit;the inspection fee vvlll be.+calcula#eci..On .n hriur#y basis:par the builtl#ng division. hourly r6te;uf75,with a brie n .ctrixritim;:"i'Fip :pattlnn fewill:alsr apply to ansite faortsultaiion requests..All inspection itnd:r~d st lta i i es:lnU be'paid'prior to being $06duled. Page.2 of 3 Page 251 of 270 Rage 251 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 Exhibit S : 3. puring-fli montF►;agreerrtent p rlod the building diulsfoh fade:;cihf�ircemer,tofficerwill rhake. a.mnrithly:site.insp:eetion to vetlfy m.(n am with the,:>ire are fife safety re.quire.ments of this agreement.The 75:inspection fee will4 +ai ad forth ...Onthly_-Ihsnectir�n, This letter sfialt.alsv seriie'a atotice:trflfissftiot as-ticUlre ;fj+1, :Sfloin Et1 _ ' lakie; if violation which states, `7_he bulfclMg:-or k7 . autoato:tp;se e Person � oeth responsible for the.-erection,torrstrur 664,;alteratfvn,,extensinrl,trepalr moving removct4..tiemolitlon or occuponcy of o_:buflgtltrg Alt'sfrci��tur��n ul�i�d dt�n�p tlT�pr�a�sf�ns a�thl�rode,`off:l�utalati ri #etafl stotomerir ar"a plan i pproved:thereunder;&It dr eertocoh i is d under the provisions.of.tti�:eo�}e?,;5cte#t brelers#t�I,f;d#rt�cT.ct�.e..�scar#tivanc�pf t rah lle�gl petOh�c condition and the abaterr�er►t�f'�the'uloltrtibn�� Tice.final inspecfiv. ft r-Tho:i irr.14 a stru0iu a mus"t be:ci Ilea fQr "Od:Orrrpleted fln or bef ire. December 20;ZQ13: If the final lnspectiori'has not.been:cpmple edaand the required certlficaCe.of:.o lKupancv l►as nott eim issued. .a new boild ng perrnit.Will tip:requited far:xhf5 prole k: To obtain the 6gw hulldiiig:pefmit, _ne�nrpermEtappiicatiari liacl�age:rriust lac sub :tCed:arid a!1 appiicatil`e pern�r fee fCarxl e; .ew p.errrtit must be paid.As part of the new,permit;app(i tl n paclta e, now plans-thaC ire0-'.tl�e:rerjp(re nts Qf'the current cocl0 that is effect at the tftle of the now perrt►it application. l a ee 0the r dltl afrs..0i d.tfriietloos 4listed Me: Peter o�psoni 0erpert •Die Date i have recelvo.O ibut:do not agree:to:th c;s #t<l rns..e tt el ri s Iis d'abpvo. W _-4PeWTIG-1 Pso:n;Propert-row"Or 9O-b Risk,t tiief iu ldirig`offmtii= ty`of boziii ttri l ante page 3'of::3 Page 252 of 270 Page 252 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit T : Exhibit 12 '����l�lt��t4ysrci llt`ixcf 'cell l'ltc�f� : #l- kt1*(i . Cniil "l:Li!! ti1f?t3ir Friday; March 3.:2Ofi z D.6livetW by Hdhd Cattail creek-Cof°rturtity.As is ti6h l rays l Brit r.�°Pt+ t Idar 406 5.81 9 l:t�wadurth do'Ing- o� s re arwP ran was urlaria cl# find the attscl rid Hen ctrment(see;a..airlt m. vVeo: heCc:eir riiail.;at°,thy. d ra_abouq-,ruts)artd;sv +hfrsquently: trail lynx 9 -V .e I.t datad.et 16' Wee l arn'S#rat`I went::�iireclly tw bear we st f aln scree.:rrtafl bo'x 4n-d.j�,urid i n°ri: 'ice Of ser'Vice the'r' . wehave:rectv�. :ia rttf °if srr_ f ll rsy: ;tlr;r�ptr�# tv :Ntitar► Minnick has assorted tWhls ileo`111Ing and tt i AA PKIMahappen,$tAh a that l h trej4peiv:64 1 .gwever, providet�yci r lien tlot .g fx:t.81 g , included nothing bast the.dwumeq. t�ttac pd t erewllli y.qu 66ntldiF fiy dr Ubi� 0t ehf:a ura#ply:r arri d* t .err. ri1j�. fiiat we Iav o #aired ': bpyf t 1i Xerrrdin see's es att �iirit A, irain�ltl�; Alto attached.l�er'evuitli'1��t#�ebrn.�r�t l� It is:a.n caxcerpfft bm ray r�6ent':16ft- r to�b�va grid l eydr c .Property Menagerrlent.diwussing.My. issuc�s'.that I.feel wire poorly handled:�y. ail r a trrturrit sib tiorf w on�the f�f;.currecl,; 'r€�rrtsiin.unreaolved.�c�tiay snd y. y have dirodt bearltig:ori M' lk�J.00d ks lter :fillrig,.. lti:: C1 taw i(.e00lved.;b01J%rg:from,: .:Ira iad.ing: 0 du .ftf: :rripr+,. a: .rnr a V. ptrrcttase.af:aur:lot 1 set:thte.l i1(m.rrJas_.pl'ptnned.:an gtvrt ,g tl�e€� they left"er+ui�frier oily ine a wr#,my':at onng it acht:w., rent ni .g to file.lisn yr my property if:their bill W*69 60t: id lrr�me�f�#�Cy:: 3JV�turn��f.tt�b ether�f�eel€end paint the.-bill witli.p kitof protest_ June pall:P.roperty M ngyg` rria t t Jett r.#jtesohing hbi.a0 Meld`:it::Until Jur* 1601.bafare.r Aling t(sat : a'hir nt leak ..Iblter.slip t#treat rted tv n e tintp our pre r tg'k,�cite of he Weeds., bill frie or1he wank:::����irse'us 1�6 ddll�rs it the work vvaa not.6ornp.16W.by-,June 22"4; gelri.we.f#irrted'#he dtiir�r�ck�eelc, l pard:extr .far Test`s ring Rr�uCtdup grid got wed .spr;ayed t. rcve pY#ha:dry k�fdre F�fet�`s:deadllrle and saw the. wepds:were,Wrnt and wiE066— 1 w s,i`eiinved ate.lia+l rnot,the�I�tacJline, Next week Wheh I got b of to word on khe:bous% the* vvas rl'owe...d Later .recetvdd:e :de�llar bill frt�r� the :olty,fnr the hidw.Og. °Agiainm0#tuned this snd laid t11� b111,. lavlr�pe , ne.sritr:yptir'prtvlte prbpes grid : dsmsp.e:l :tore:#lart; ris ratirr . The..weds vtrera t�trli+(ad:st�;shc vie,E3ad: A;elte;iettp_f`.lifa `tpliri off ill the niswei# areas:t. rersttave the ur�ciergtf ursd rants and$hen 5i rt Drat tl a grub pilfw find r grade th entire lot Our plan had.bee #i a Yv ��is kl6tlr#g the .anr1 Then., th tboir. 60er;014.ii. rr€atetial.:still iri,pl ike,Ve battld'oa3,;vit:the.1.6t.wiih". 1. ti l steer are :all weed ertd'root rriaieritil. vub.tilt ..rlb rt p:. d .iljr iis'< p ra i tbul t.hAVd.-Velded.forci .:us:te grub rho:en ire.lot and reg.r.ade; �gel�,wo tdtn4d"I a th ehe k artci.rri. 6 on Page 253 of 270 Page 253 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit T : Exhibit 12 For a while the Cattail Creek iCammr OR-Y i tloif'seeixiibd to. e lativin .us.alone, then In C3etober.of 2010 they started up:again with door Mangers. -1. sppke smiths sdtneone—See comments in attachment B about this. For another whilei, the Cattail Creek Community Association seemed to be.-leavlog us.alone:' Then raid summer of 2011 they started up agairi. See attachment B Instead.of getting the written response requested and-assured from Above and i3eyorid as described in attachritent B: r ficer Rick Musson Badge# 166 arriVOd ait my]..Quse:secretly wearing.6-.wire.and.recorded hl:�Interrogation of me with an accusatory style of que0briing, pointedly asking my'wrfr�.and I about:vandalized trees in the Park. Eyeing interrogated in.rn* driV�v�isy while the neighbors(sdr ie board meriibera�vvatctied and:probabiy sniggered srri4egfyj+tins very publiiJ end l uttliliattng ei;perren0 fear rriy. Wite and 1. I1Vfe have similar feelings when 1 scants the Internet. ..d t'ind copies ref i 46 :n,.�inrr?c 's tii Owed titt rit dd#te_-qri ttto behialf of Cattail Creek Community Association. After getting the x inaround, at the PD while:asking far a;.cvpji of MtlssArt's report'ar7d makdti different trips and requests, eventually oti JtltV$,.201:1 JUdg.6 Holly Brciwrt issued a court:order for.the Police Department that you work for, to release i�#ir or 14�u�son's capt�i't`to:m�s. Around this time l.,rdlci also gbtain a cagy zaf.thy°police;;report..we fi16d,regardlr g vandblr who bars developr:d the habit.of throtuing eggs at bur houad and cars. When I went:tip.Above and Beyond,.UvMs giving otite cif oamplaint and fair warning that wry felt wronged and worild seek legal rerri:edlet if Cbttail.Cre6k.Comfthity Association confinUed with their:selective enforcement of covenants. In.ar�eflb ter openly resc�lva the proble.M'without legaI remedies;.I speci>I011 asked fora written response as a way of documenting issue:and getting.it ces Oved, Twletirrg this.effort around to making me a person if interest'in cutting down 16 trees in-the.park is,ridieulous and. can only be seers as passive aggressive behaviri. .by petty.and me.aa spirited people. Deliberately choosing.not to make ai writtr�ri respvr� ta'irsires as r6quested and filing lien without making any effort resolve problem thru.direct corrrrnuriice#aan:, �n �i1sa been seen as the actions of bullies and or potty and or mean spirited people. Knowing.Above.and.Beyond to be prolfessionals,,'We...arec obrtain they relayed all.issues to you personally as detailed ' ttie attached leer. It'ls.appprent tie us th Oy.du and'the.Cattail Creek Ci rrimuriityAssociation were frustrated about being challerrgett regardirt the;f61th6sa of jir Ur:aCtdorts:agalntt�:ds. vVe can see that you failed to make a direct response and instead thie Latta l.0.00K,Comi�runit�i A�scrciatran slandered us to the police department and this resulted'ii the humillaiing nterrogation in our driveway in fr'on :of your fellow board members.-. For years now, my wife and 1,check:,u4rhouse and:p tor:eggs;-live often:look atour.door knob with a sinking expectancy and sense,of dread=when over w pudl lit rrrto-the driveway; we cennnt:ttelp but to wonder what vriil carr►e.rrext; Additi+ np we-on with�.O fi ri#6g0 of ar es:we ace:the-daily t(ock and:white patrols of the neighborhood as v►te woTid:er whoa:thte ::0a�ill Cr�k ommuntfyc ssootation rriight irria irre to slander Lis with again.. Especially, now that, in lleu of any proleer written response from dattall.Cree*k.Community is Association, we are making bur owh.efforts tie dlreotiy'.ball yd.U:out and address thin issue formally and in writing. Does the Cattail Creek Cor;munity�:ssrac a dri wi:sli'to witi?dr.au±a;yc ir tflreet:ter enter our private proposty, take actions necessary to irnprovi the appearance of our.private`* erty to°bring it In compliance as threatened in your 4-28-2011 letter? i feet cathpelled to ask as this same letter also:included the.other Page 254 of 270 Page 254 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit T : Exhibit 12 threat tfiaf yf� i lI ue::rerirnEly r:nade.-Ob6d t ;A tiri u'a ft r th 'u i;nf.iiilr fi rs trailer cn t r cftue n i. permitted 009truction site: Again,f6. P*hill#16 t 1t0 �.eok�.oMmunitl A�si��kin 1,' s--.lolle;1�ut c�c��tly�v _hive r c�ivrd series of door'hhngeri spine threa.Oning fi 6, VWra�1�l�r�nity mernber Fetes: crnr664 fmrri#I r f par Bangers via Catt it Gr6ek.Vewillreplysp cfalytaea t is �cimrt�uni#y.l�ssrtcl�ticrt's r+�pres�rfttrv�, Corr�rr°rrurrtr.�y.�l��sm r�et1'rber l�r"t�r: 1: X ReMDVe:RV,,tr r{#t.;.—b kO.-Or=''s obifefto!n W!.t'o q.corlimunityi er~'; t#,e1rrerrt — 1suorvicrlyirs�:�rssd�rilth : iiartefeflr5g + wrc then and Tarr now a l7 rrriitt d ristru tian site and>use-ref h* trailers 16(constr'uctIon relate uvark i'�cort�mor . 1 :;. a t tt + l rit i t'E -- I si r vrr i,r ly is i l uvith kicrva rid Bi yc�nri Property.ity fi = ri eriierit and l 1zve ten waiting for your wtltten reply srnce Jurtie oft f„ G. 1F11e are ir�;Mntana.�::Callatiri .tsun +; rlere tl�aere l .vd r�ttert bin rnc�ra Nurses#tan peajiia, is a horsy;trailer parker iri a:drivew ey really.anlssris' 1`h+s.clty.af�f3 erpan., [think:.ot a one of�the most r+vert wring: rriall g veti*Mi3nts.l h.A�t+�_eVer: en errs fl�o;4!fy nave rules agoinst pprking a horse trailer in a:dr veway`$ D_tf+lrauId.ycirr slim h. sii� i .about tlf a ltbr� Wall y'if) Dark it On the road? 2: X ot*6er Rerriova�Storage Container l s.an:ttp° niat i it : srorar e container� is tr :ls.cirri l rfi bests. tr far:art :t1 ;e: ri w►er,prs v t�: d Peak frt.2 'l.0 v.6uld have siffflced ll rcitad; y: Ariswer".prevl6usly prutrdeAbov'o arld I .Oyonfln qi is just as,g66&gnd:sh►o�ild sr ffirae itirti tt�daj,�, gain .hr re iti t rritlrtg far your` asy:refereit ls..a>r`answr Hhat`should°cute into the fu#rare: 1N are.curren#1y rri ei +ari rsfrucfii .h.r r d visa.' f none trallers and r dritol#iers On'.On trt ckirin sites is conlmon,, B: Storage oanta ner wtli not�reir 1p+.,On.M wtteri carfstru f uri is_qc lf�e wur l pile is a iriy5tory to ixie, 1.helve seen othpl.s around the ne gttt?dnco .#ar yr~ rs grid da riot recall tl €rn nelrr addressed in ttia:onvehaots.'�r :uvd first recoiv ri.* e tl reatening Ares about the wend pile,l was crkt ref town and my wife+ a'vory.t fir et.abaut th0*.AO lde.of fine. l told her,:y.0 Fiaviv a bad back lhera is n tliicr .in tier:covenatitS'ek It v pi i pilaff;.tiff i t wt c Gl piles.are lri igltf'from aifr:hr Fps ;.cla noth!ng;and I will handle rt whan.l.qet horde<. ley.t 01 yne l f e hefe fhe i,�d::psl1e b.# .-een:Orrted inside: ,�verdl week s inter we again: rr ui+ttid`:d ctbdr hari er.'tFiieatoning e'fiine.4t rI flow n�!r�. �istentWpad pileti 1 ; 'lease,tst�i�.uiiut . aria mare.iriforrt atlran oit::: . to il: r lr trrii uriitjC ssrc a'on' issues with WOO(! n%l •15:In iidr�t;�rid:r a:�ifically:fii�v 1t r�lates:tb ffla°one:+�n i�tY,props q+ ,vlhari it was atitside of the garage.and explain why Cattail-Creek 0on7i urr ty�ssoi�lativn thri; t* ed to fine.us when the.wood pile was insmde the:gareage: D:.E uas. attai f:Lrraek• .arrtirii:lrtity fissoG tir r .h ve.;iul s a ntis#:woo+ stove s arttl r woor� pins; that 1 riiigtit tie+unaware For the[e odrd, if yeti.send.r . ili'to f1 a:address pr vl +Oolystat f; Cif:!try l i~ak°IUfarlageii ei t; again in 2019 tuAhsove and E3eyonrl.iViarragernalit anf ,coritalned.herein the header d-4his lek#ar and this bill.was for dues+-+dAly and yaur.1 111 pri vldes an adcouritinp t t. act pay tOnts,r..eceived from me hack thru 2008, 1 would Pay It in full:Wthiri OQ f d,90 0i+ys Rirti ermore ypp,or ti tii -te s ttd bi(1s t tl r: tf dr des rlbad iri`ttt per' raph:66v for dU6Z only. i ill1 raritlriue:to.pa:y,:.therpr4irifty.. C.si rentially.:we are.nwilling:to.p .y lata for W ills,•ser� :i th.e vvrp:ii a tl ass:whici We h6ve+Mt.rer ivec3.. We are.unwilling:tp pay fines or:late f6ds;regarding Orly issues that wn liaue,preusly:addra ed (as stated in attach m6nt:B)tl at.ynu have fsiliW:to i c!Wa.:diti ctirei jporiO:OIS+Into July etf 01f.. �inr;erely Peter Thompson Page 255 of 270 Page 255 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit T : Exhibit 12 Y k; .y i£a{ ` t$il.a-, fii31,€:ft7•ti3 Ora� '11';"� +.S; °Sl:: t°�!k x !,e4 a jNIT'; :1Na:`.: °! A -t ' doe. "N11£"it,'c': t"i k F o.cd$it �{Ai F3 3'kkc`.M€ t! y%34. ..3•r3 i'# .h�,11;E.Sx. [A*I: 5w;, ide£4 :9 dahouly(mant.0t a.1 . :.:t`t4. �34ti-�a3fli.€I�s �tf3:ra'a4 �:�{E. : .• caa€a^ V I .i�t:.:l,ia^ 4�'ti ..`y.{yt :.; t. Y.. _�.:�jl' �:: Y'�: i^.r I sES;`...' .siy :.3:�Cti;`'44 HA I air :F:,�kf.'�� � (a) "»'U - C!'S IiE'I _. j '.-: if�i€°.�•£:%�£ .t4�.£ f3 !"' J£A3i ';} ix`. it#1i;._iis��I;r.F€it a y tc' ..Sq�:' qjt sf it ;i F # i I ' ,�, iz 4,IJklSli;i'i:jr.:fk.R:fi13"ai °€'# �itte ,r.4:iasL."d.£n 1 Yt�:4 - p WN 1 :�rcy.£�>"a'ty tz9;r+es.�a Li.€:�C:i$:�T,Ft0�3�?ry .'' ,.♦€: ,r•<... ...,rw.. _a.i'{All �y+ak .�:a. ,f aF�.�T'.[-,I-_. ISY b'r k. 3 A,F - ..xar', r•l:al-S'7 l:�r?Y.'?i k4•r%{. 14A €t it'@ .iko rw.OD �+:. tifti «Ts t- M. �. } 99 3ki::` Siix£_ 3183.E 1k+5!•kYr3 t ft'Y ti4`.'3}s, :a e ;wi4if7 f: it�E IA �: E�a£a£fv -� `a 3 t vrt c:ow alid��; a ik ;.(.ta^^$ i t.r+,this.i.tA"o R y a:: :t€va£afl.3 ztl ies. ttt� ;tied ;tos;�lua:ti+z .'ti:..i�:,„t+Y�'!�i..u„rg:..'kyS�tiz:Y.19;3Fi,i�'�c� tai<a5:t• • �.x.F+ .it§�'�.1 � �a"-� , . .. ... � ..S.t�'i3!a€•>.:`�IZI P':.- is w4; aL3...t as�ftx.�.:r.�,'ti:�C'3` �l�',3�£i�:,.;zi}'f'•; =''a. !�3v6.`£? i�c'f€P'Siw4"i Ef:'s_•'t3t'Y h s �'t' ai�t„ti7r:S d ��ii�5 ;,`r• iik;tfi i�;c€fttaa.;#�: �L:(. �n.t=r <s:s k; s:ii fit; ti Som Mom.- yr lA4 Page 256 of 270 Page 256 of 270 ............. . ....... . ... Exhibit 12 Exhibit T : liib� 12 IM&`i fits*11Dso t _..._ ILZC117�i41.:�ti) y1E14i 7_1...: _ _z.. is a Ii l'lia:any . r 6 7�i��tl ii�;il; 't'lt+ttt a :3ifii? i i i �.i.ziat� wednesday,lt _2 0 2 Abo�tt:_t Bytiil:t: rape. tjr::Manag �nerrt Delivered by Hand BoZeffidrii.1V#7'Sl37:I: 406.5*6*- ­2093: T.b*l76i'rt:.it:ii oy ce nci0r.: i 4V in and spoke.vrith:Qr�e`of:yaur falfis r ly._Al.s# 'I :iltla�eaybe rly ur3 t_ 6 1: l was at: oui�..otlie to r n5 to l t r av rl 'g io fvr;e`ez vi rn an cq.pins r��r�.in Ways Y that 1 fait w r urtf it and rrrt to rtr by irr rprst n also t provirt -nay ppq� t magi ae r ss:for: the S&bOhd AWie;A. 5 l till ht rOce;ve rfine l from the.HOA where it.was sera o rt ... Th 'icipi u z:i i t ire>es llOwsk; l4iv o frustrated:with Pra.V:i"u,4::t i" pertji>N#aria + rherit ci riipany;;a ,l tad` ,I:a ly.-given,ttaeniniy. c°i�ar� a rxf.addross t�ver tlia3 t t ni ; r11 tibsli stt1l:W f1t tc:ta h .use sadly..had T eri f6recl6se can lr t�°t.b; alr�io�lta`;fll..y:�a�itti tii� ���t�: l.sitras ssk ri for'taoPlas ►f°arty c�ai-it ha gers:frohi.'a l�;as,l:dciu(d rint 3lnd them:and:was:collectirtq infc�ri��tl�rt t prss�:rtt.td�:tawyr�r,�ri;t�lk��ut:selscti+te entar�emarit���f:tl�°c��rer�«3nt� :Oon Otto bale$..M s"n -Adis am ade`'gdo.d_.effet�but foond none:, t:ret+ai at?a�;ca(Ebn' 'F iiiic`a (t'at i ufi ttt ;cl.I or an9 ai d t lfi'r g# re r7 1--was a Pertr}itted 9 al s riri✓fjOn slto and the tieate,§V.O.e.I h6d. var:seon al m .j0:6li gs were hurt that they:felt ratter t J€s 1 vt+a5 tCtld 1.+ cuWOOt:rall.'t�srk'fronj Pem vtiiE�r�s�t..�aor banger to hepr tl�eir;pairtt af: Viet: 'I never slid heor'4hy—th"'' W k< We telked abg6t:timi ig:oiid.-cdt'iiti.datitin : .fee y it t :.cCii i l I p inti d u t.:th INUOR140`6a Ian revieWI—*l:hAd#old Rbb Pert�b'o��i +�F rrty:ast"rr€�at�:�howed 18 iric ttt(�s f crar: tita is tfi if 'r r a jec ,td`:rty+ rk:.i?.0'ttQurs tiet r te'a1t. h c'nversetit tt Mn +,er°tzt c utr e,was'frleridiy end.haldgill,.pointii g':WtAb�Ahrr�:.ccivertartts:had a.**10 se that;sairf if�iiy ruie ccnfltcfed with 0.pp enant.$ city rule'sI superseded haven. s. SA:as.lc�ng as l hed active .ar . w g i t had tacelhitrgpr W " tro ts. a Irig6r'°th'ait,:a;year. I g va: rt :' �cari Ias.:of. r a ett�fti ar i that 1`had tiatld a t60ig Cr re tliarr a.yeai.to Alisha in this rr�es Ing lri.effect I feel I:had;" iib' y�au. iir tiatI66A r�,t�l wrauid, cci€itirtued ri tide ofi Tir�iitig Arid enstncctl nprilp Bin S as:llarast3iaerit:. i wf'r�t to my-car. .rtCi. iL� 3;'. .ibVril�t�+. 1 ( f' :V . . tCs1t `3rlt •IJ11j1£'dt :(JtlC}G'it,tll8y. ai`a diff erent.thei the arias Alislie was. rtsawlhg me irr:yQ fC ofiflce_. .#�s l:recall the:anes;itt yc Of office"Id metro like nO teener ;: The ar;es l had sail yin rocreatiiartal;Vt h:icias and.l feli.1.was s Stretch to apply rules:bout tr�craat#ori�l.veFitele�'ti3;t�altar° • Ihcwed. i 'ofrri; r*y atitar trilirs lid ere °ari± ats? parttt:scut`kFta averi if: re:were:#alking tc�tlt:its hailers; riit prs�'s shiwieci:stl3'ar traili#s.'In:ptae frr y . rs strcttat`tYPiaity voids the. Page 257 of 270 Page 257 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit T : � Exhibit 12 .covenants and is pretty much.:ttie..deiii ition rit harassment YID sdeetiye enfoi meat of the Covenants. In effect I.feel I hart given;you fait notice that l would see continued notice of Trailer complaints as I�arassrriet�4. 1 showed Alisha our address:grid_she noticedA**.was the.addr�ss where these complaints had originated, l:painted out we had been r•-ocervrngour niOil at thin�addi.�ss-.sihce 2oo9. Ironically, now:litt7%?the I iUA continues:ta°sarid;;ttef mail far,me also v±there. Srarnawhere in:the:rneetirig l pointed.out that.rny trailer remairred pn sRe..r nd:if Fvkra .:Ev:t fined eYer it p€ease.do it:soon sq.!`:wauld:Icryow to::pr:'Ocoed'With defendirigm.yseif: At the clo of the rrrao m ., asked far a:written repor�se to tE�+s rssues and'he�rd I�nri�Ultt have a response in.about a week: I assume,some6A6 6t,your o_fi€ge:gave'. rn.S.ot~auntin s of.erir fiieatirrg siriiilar ta_nay note above Orectly to Travis Minter.. 1.have never received.ah.letter from your-office.f0.g...4rding the ± .l :tes:eitec,our meeting. I assume the respohsc was!1.0t for Travis to:.hartt[e`.� Please::ciarifjt wile:y to told about-our meeting and flow you.were iihstrUcted to handle'.tny. response. Recently while at the Courthouse doing research an arlother:rriatter, [hoticed:Minnick had filed'a lien .Qwnly;house. The lien, claimed to have.given notice via mail, but:this was-the first I had heard of it- 'this lien appears`to.have noth"i ig'but4stel"st for.bills €did riot:.get ettd..also inclpde�a:fine based:on your letters�ta me-discussed above�Hence, fhis.Iang and.,detm e, no 0 to you Ioo€cing for help.and information. Thanks.for.:your tinja in.:healing me.outyaue:patienae and help .Sincerely Pater Thompson Page 258 of 270 Page 258 of 270 .. . .... . ........................................................................................... _ -� ::.�. ..... � � ,I , . ., - - '....:. �.::.:�.���:...,.....:. .. .. . . . -�... .. m;.� ..1. .. �.:... :: �-:1:����:���,. . . - -, . .:::: :,....*...:.,.',,......-.. :.4� :`%,:-,.�: -. ..-.-... ....:. . . .. ,:. . .. ....-­;. . . ., ..'. . .. ;- -�� -,-, , 1� , . .:: . .... .. . I . , , � , . . . .. . -........--�.,-.�--.�.� ,�'�: . . .. .., I * :::, :..:. .. .... .,.. .. .. .... . . * .. .. . : 1 , , , : E , , �C�Pjt I qj , a� r:.' :� :' . . �'' . :'. . . '.' ' ... .v"I +�#�1'i�Ptll€(r!H 1S,. a ,1C14mii �i� Lt}�3 � a13�s1�� � tit , �.K��'}�`IP�l17.i v ,)',b1t�i�Pt�(31�. 161t }#ftlY� i[ 4f ll� f# tl€�`i r a } � � MI- �. Clem%f 9�; I ;..4. 11,} q P e9i4P9t Glak tE1C} }] Cfa39ti[} Etl € 4�di# f �3 laDt # 13331ix # �T $i+3fi #{' 3A ����° c1�;ttP�� � I`tl c- t: t , U.0, v ra' � „ <: ,1W( t '� �3 a�f o � d � l hf f �°i:1(§i. �+tl . :,r . a111��Y1E tE1 F ttP .Ir# �i 1 11 4# �1 x �111 v °�iif � 1�t4� fl � ill t- tt�4T�i f1 1,E£ i 1j`f�.tj Cfb � !.3?���C9 x#9[3i.lt`'.G(, 10ti t! _ rs313s , POT.�V !� ,,; .,31-X��3�# �t�fl �F�`1. ���w �� � - : - ._.r. �> r.. t� , t Pi»,,, <,lt. $ t_ l ,k `4sE1srf11f�l� [*l )Ot era t ?it d xi 1� . .f ';tlii f to t tll 411/! Pl#}{ylg#s�yJ}LI3yi{}Tiy`# tE} Jy ty ' Q�i,_ .1 ��P� *fit}. . ".t �'l �P{`1 TP �.��v"`�£'$i' `I .. > tt'a, -& �'.t PFi�PD Y+ � f: � 1-17 ,5�'4 '.7 t�^t 7jE�b 10, .,31 Kam.,`b�,E R�} G.•�..�E �1 f 3 7 t t 5� �t �. f.. ..�IfsE � f11 _ �IM A,4 �' : .'... 11 . ;.,... ss�� r .. .. ~ :' t 'rPi1� T1P{;l3Iion £a1 i}ll.� nkLmw,TT 1fd !ia1 VOW )"Cip In },k.,..'�s191.' i. 1�i fly f,,Cc!C',lk �� ��:,,,I �,HId c:om�i'Illwt io]I ° 1P1. �s� '�l c" , c�) #r,c' lt, ! �rf. t f �,ia ., FLIP �I !?:'ll�'3 1!x # @'IPI P�IiCTll l�_Id# tl� � l 3)t`!;R it ;'tL SV9i:'t. iflif i ill �t s��.:`;1's� thE'{ { j4i ��'Ie`�+ a `3 "ouln� of I )1i•ck:IL}3`. # 3f1 I �T�Ick, £ t3lslfl:tf'TfJ. 't;i +t�;:.13atYj#, I I 9. , ..:i.�'.... : .. . .. . c <.�ytaF ,r i �4 i' Y �'Ft .. - .. :': ` yy! .. a' T . S. { - .. d 1� 11 { l Y alp". Ij w ' S'��. "F Ella t. i l.- b,1 li',II1 €-,. tGe f.,-�oitt4, Qrf- - fSsv1c r(. ( 1`44'tt -' } ;;:.;-. .;:: ..... .... I I� - �I . I w j i J ►. ... S 1 .k 6S F,+t+�w _ X Auwa { M `p, * . -, . � . .I .� " —— ,. , "-,,,,,-,,,� ,.. ?._ x s ' GE:ANAf� 11: `� � m7. '., — . J j I I . �- . � �f�. I . ,. : :. ,:. ... .. L t . -r j iI {� t7 f 7 .� ' f t .. .'. ,:.,.:: •: �. ! t ` f , # "#F w µ11r` a t 1 i3 I'fi.�2d �J ¢ #d'2 ! t7 f 7#SFe 1 t� [dYt :,. F P e. 59 of 270 Page 259 pf 270 —_ _ *- �_ . :. r_ . , L X!1.1L.�_L, 1. U l�rt .ti'atliritur C'ir� .1rtr,�ne s ' • �t 12 �,. ��.�����m�n �`� ��tt��Stctl,#:�Srrr,rfrst Mt �y .y ,5;rt'r�tr J4isc#ctl ktltif Itt::rtae F .. Cit .[1�1111��� �� �lrlfif.��tlttY71w:�47tt(1:;��/��f`!It'}' Rk';tn ��z Cron 5r�,zt1 ev rlrtrur�u�°eruai,Sritrf �tr� ;�,;, HAND DFLINTRED Peter Thompson 2988.81ackbird:D.tive Bozeman, MT:59718 , Buildful;>�1T�risi+an��.lt�ti�ns Of"O8 21fiekb rd >)rive Mr. Thompsan. The agreement you ed.with tzi '1 lilidin �q c l.B ih Ris tits:i.un 9.2011 aI.lowed you to continue:work on.the:.stetietxrxe fit.Ott;al,c��re act ress Mthduit:a ctix�r�nt �urld%rz�pc�rtrr t. Nia�tir that th.C: a reemf"nt.his.e�cpriec y► :d ust:.a rtarn tt aew; hu>Idit� ; dnz# t d any. .ldil:�onal.work on tlze.strucaturc.A iy w0r. m t.6:pxopoxt. after December 20,:2+11 ;yv tho.trt a valid build rtt;perct�it. is.a violation of`lnternational.:Residential Code {11ZQ..§ RI,(?S.i In add%t.im; the ttgreerrrerit all-owed youw occ p the 1i€tsraiii. nt ofth strut tur With a t mpr►racy certificate of accuprzrtcy: NOW:that thy: � en.antb e� yW .. cupyng the :fructure' iliegalty.pursuant to IRC. ;§.R.LI0:1. Violations cif the lnil r.natioual 90-440dal CQcIe.. .6nf rncrtble against the p _p ,v owner for pcfilq a vinta#'rrn X% ft 1O.02 QtO BOzcntatt Mttnic Gii& V:cilati nf.tlie Bozcm<tn Municipal Cade are subject tcs 'iI 00tte's gonerafp:-rial,ty §1.01.21.0.(;oneral Penn I.h,for Crode iolitlodt : [lnless r uxc yd ,: n.p.TOVIW m�Mutthertiisc sp crFe h person. tirmn or corp ,.tieir ageni mso � : � � � . � psn ot`tlxe l 4zeri1ltn N�.uu ei-pal Code S.. tie do rxYed guilt .Qt: misd n�c;an�r aii.d: upon cc�ri��icticin thereof,.shall be puniislied by a i.nt risc�iu etit. fnie: t aq�gum n7t WOdirg 5.11 Uf or h� fir a pc #d not.exce . x . 4lfirnt ichi ts and iiriprisonm n t,. and sliall.pay.all..c fists ariii:i~ ±± ofth : ase;:A:sep''ru r f r r s/rall be rrtrtdd,dtr::�i�c�ttrw or nrxPztc�s, . .. . : l.. ri ci er.tca cc�rne intd calt l ... :C iuin:rnedipately' : $yi.art coti71}� with the ta1l.i�wiisg. You.. oust obtain tr new buxlditg petut f'c�tfl 13.lackbird Drive lr rn the Building D t pzt i t :4 ]rch.,'2 x< 2U:.13. A,It)t uil :t t i suave of (he building perinit the City will: ssue you a nOw tomporat cer�.fi at .cif oc:cup�trzc: fear`thy.basement only. This ceificatc.will rtot,,lixcl.ud :.t1 deer rt«r .tip° y;'ctlier. part. ftlz°e.bcyusti: TlZix tenip ,rury rrNc t,Llclres.. 1'�.f� rrit.h'utird' 1 ho t)w(4(YjJ 58-1-2 f.?9 Alydling Adehelvx:fto? &r-1?Ott Fxt':Wk`t)?< '•'.;(:? firr.:roan,A• r11h) 69E Y/ i2.?O Page 1N of�7U Page Exhibit 12 Exhibit U : Exhibit 12 tc►ii#ic tc til"uc.cu�tz�i;y :�+.i11: '�.�1 ci :t�r,l c : ii . Iip : J�J i�ys ft, r isws we ref the, building er nih. At:.(lie t,nd Ot th-18..:0 ddy pal'o you thust hi vb. Wt.I. ed- f11-a ��rt�fica�te t�#.�sct.ul�ax�cv FOR'IHE ENTIRE ST.I Uc1"U:R'8, 1 :: ; u. t ii:l,: ti: c ii is I.'.:: ►Y a'rf' cal" l a vsl a %��ai al :4 rtn l it NNI I b� QW, ��aum5t �to1a. �'1- . . Y T� . sip rat; i u ii l: ;o i l i t nay[ i1 1 zt y:` i t l £ s s r tMUe:y ru:lhi 1 to 6bt�uj�i. a �a �v::t ��lwr icy erti 'ioat �t c octl� n i is i i1 z� ies ii:it � ur�.1 21r sr'.t f you tail to c►htait3 _f t l + 'tiff : t < i >t z cry; iii i lit za ty tiling r riniiiiiul°:c iarg s aga nst }-iu thy:City will ftok..A Wii l"Orl or re writ gy....:tip v.A.t�:th t. the:ll�i�0;cif. ��gin, � �w:�����r builrli>� g pit:yrun� 1nuk . n .17�! 1f11lC17k :1�V1�11 tl� t"Ii F3ti1t .i 1 # is t I: 3.t ;RiS :Oit;��t:;��zszt�r�t sincerely, vvlr,.C.Mormy C ity'l�rc��'i?ctttar cc, Drib 11JA C'l1i��.Bii l� ���+�]fh2 Page 261 of 270 Page 261 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit. V : Exhibit 12 Cattail Creek.Romeowiter's'Association PO Box 1254 Bozeman,MT 59771-1254: JuIy1,2007 Dear Fellow Owners: As marry of you know;there was an unsuccessful.attempt in uly-2006 to combine all three phases of the Cattail Creek Homeowner's Association boards into.one association. Since theq, th-e .three volunteer boards of directors have attempted to lay the-fp 0.44tioft.1~r5r tile,-ti ree separete::1Tt3A S. Unfortunately, there have been many stumbling.,blocks•:to this process. -There peas been massive duplication its setting things up. Many of the vendors and.service:contractors we will:need:to dool with are not willing to work with three different associations,billing.each.HOA.for.their respective portions under the;same contract. We also feel that by combining the three phases into one.HOA,the yearly dues can be:kept to a minimum. These issues among others,.haze brought the boards and the.developer back to you,to ask you to please reconsider the issue of combining fate three phases,al2d associat o p, h1to or e.association. and making. minor revisions to the covenant.documonts by combiniag them into one document„which applies to all }chases, Last year's vote was almost unanimous M favor; the only reason.the vote dill not pass was that the required percent of homeowners in each please did not respond. if 75%of the,owners in each phase had responded, the vote would have passed this,tnade seise last year, and after. struggling with the problems and issues this year; it makes even more sense now. The covenant document changes Will be kept specifically to a niinimum, The only changes that will need to be made relate to the.Desigo Review.fees(having,the.sarrte:fed,for all design reviews in Cattail Creek) and changing the number.of the board.of.directors, :A,proposed copy bf tale revised documents is available For your review; you may contact Sandi Rummel,(586.4426) or Allison at histrisik, 111 E Tracy, 582-8933 for a copy of the docuineuts: These.ch.at)ges;..c.pocorns ur quc-sotions you have, and any issues for the upcoming year will be addressed at a-tneeting.t6 be held on August 7,2007 at 7:00 pin at the Wingate Inn. This will also give you an opportunity to meet the current volunteer boards of directors. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any. questions. Ballots may be returned in the enclosed self addressed, stamped envelope and intist.be received no later thatt August: 15.Your ballot may be turned in at the.meeting on August 7 at the Wingate T in.: If we have do not receive your ballrtt:before August 7 or M the meeting, we will be contacting you. Qn August 15,.the current bot+rds`of directors will count the ballots. Thank you for your prompt response to this matter. While.things are moving along in Cattail Creek, everyone has an active part in us.becoming a community. Jaymie 1-.Ittuer $85-0885. Mark Niemi 556-4694 Lola Jeffers 624-6024 Sandi Hamiltol 580-4364 Sandi Rummel 5864426 Dan Madison 580-4451 Sonny Greer 581-1312 Justin Tribitt 539-1062 Page 262 of 270 Page 262 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit V : Exhibit 12 July 7,2001. bear Property.Owhor SANDA'N. is eictremely pleased with pro rass ii'Cana .:Qeelz : f Bozeman's nicest subdivisions. At this time we have three HOA's to pl Rod we would.like-to combine the three into one. We attoinpted to setup one HOA,last suttim brit we rnwere'tidt able to.obtain the 75%total ownership to uitliFy for one lIt3A. S:ANt)AN and.ths cur ni 1'ltase.l+ Boarci.,ofDirectora:liitva disaussed.the issues and have det'ermine&it is in'the 15e uAnteresF. one 140A.. We are working together to get the message-out and a.lay the°grouticlwork necessary for what zve hope will be a succmf`ui merge. The HOA officers hav#..:rnet seyeral tirties1o.4,scusss.-the.-establishment of+one 110A-for Cattail Creek. Subdivision. We believe it-would benctit-oll.pftlte gw W.'we set+tp ono HOA instead of three separate associAtions. The cost would be.le :anti;tltp'.eas pf;tittt tltaining one HOA instead of three wituld lie very beneficial to everyonv�._ I,. L;iaFiilityinsurattce. .2. SANDAN bark and Cattail Crack Pttrl;way tnaintonanoe 3. faxes for the park:and parkway 4. Well 4ilitles S. Irrigation pipe maintenance 6. Show`iiotnuvpl. 7. M.:isc;ellancoutwexpsnti,rzs if one NOA exists'we.iSelieve.wo..wiil..`'b°e able to.keap trttr.I3;OA!:due'0 it..m.:.irlmtlMI SANDAN and the current 140A officers atiticipate the`dues will be$12t1 b0 pert it yet rly,but i#we hove to maintain three HOA's the dues will likely be substantially.higher:Yvu will-ba'b l.IM-for 2007 dates after we have voted on the HOA issue. Become.Cattail Creek w—a's established In Phases,there' are three separate associations with the saine responsibilities and'obligations t6 obver thti:tfatne.areas:: lf.you have any quest�Uns;.ynu'titay.rf ttta :atiy:of io followmg,.jt pie fo d`iscizss the estal lishntent.of one 110A for all three phases of our subdivisidtfi.. Joytnie Hauer '58a-o* Sonhy` reer. 58,1-1.31:2. Dan Madison 580-#451 Mark.Nietr►i 556-4694 Justin Tiiibitt 530-1062. l ail lei s. 624.6024. S:uidi Hamilton `5.,8043fi4: Sim i:Rtiptme1 $0406. Wa are e,�cluaitt ,a Cattail Greek'Subdivi ion`lfaitot;ll'ltt�is t;'Ll-atttil 111 plus a bstllo, rtlte`c itibtnataott of the three sets of covenants,:by4uws And design is iii:itionis; Please support this consolMatio i. I'llank you. SANUAN;LLLC Sandra(Sandi)Hamilton Daniel S.Madison i Page 263 of 270 Page 263 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 Exhibit V : September 18,2007 .Dear Cattail Creek Property Owner: WE MADE IT!!!! We would like to thank everyone for their votes regarding combining the three phases. of our homeowners association into one, we are now one association. Our official name is the CATTAIL CREEK:COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. The covenants are being revamped by our attorney and.as to as we have them ready we'll send out another ballot. for th .#Heir.approval, ;Hopefully this will happen within the next month or so,depending on how quickly she can got them doze. Enclosed is your bill for 2007, you may p4y'for 6 months or for the fill year, We will send out future bills.in December and.iune: We might be looking for another board member from Phase 11, so if you are interested in serving,please contact one of the current buurd members. Our Cattail Creek dues are used for park. maintenance, well utilities, repairs, snow removal, irritation pipe maintenance, insurance and taxes, ete. These dues are separate from your regular condo dues that are for your individual condo association. We are having a little bit of confuSiolf as to-:the:property:Wdresses..o#'ime of the condos. The tax records show one addrew.aad.th@:p�sE Q�ve ahpws another address, so if your address is incorrect on our bill,please correct'it and return.it with your check. If you have any questions, please contact one of your current board members that are listed below, Sandi Ruanmel 586-4426 sandi.kiatYailton 580-4364 Mark Neimi. .55.6-469.4 Lola Jeffers. 624-6024 Justin Tribitt 539-1062 Dan Madison 580-4451 Sonny Greer 581-1312 Jaymie Hauer 585-9885 Thank you. CATTAIL CREEK COMMUNITY ASSO.C✓IATION. Sandi Hamilton,Treasurer. Page 264 of 270 Page 264 of 270 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 12 Exhibit V : Cattail CreekCvrrrmunilyA,rsociat.ion M B.IM..2 Bozeman,Montana 59719 CATTAIL E HEEit A<.:btumursifybekloyi t'll Jaimir 25 .2008. Dear Climm A t ear many rtrantlts of reV Ow.attd red].sign , the Cattail. t~rek.Catti►munity A�s�ci�tic�xt ducunjvnE�, caiisisting of'thc Bylaws,C:.Ovomints:and basi0n .11 inr+s ar+�:reudyl i�nCipsect.please rind your'ballot for voting an the proposed changes as Well as a stamped and arldresseil envelope for returning.your completed ballot, The Covenants Bylaws wnra atriended to'rettot t.the 00M. ittiilg;ot the Are phrases/HOA associations into one association. 'These edits inc ude.changes to iha eotr[ppoi.top end dutres:of the Board dfDirectors, voting,ineinberWo. Interests,and assessments: There are also sBveral,proposed cftaiii es to; he:Desig»Roplatio0o 4ftVf tlie;changes s'to estab(istt the • sane design revioW fees;for all,phases: I'revlousiy,;no design revieuv fees were'required an Phase 1, one design.review fee was-tmu'red..for Phis ,2; and aniather. lesigit rWieuv:fec was required.for Phase . Witli.the cpmbiitation.of ail;three:.phase anti oft®a isoctat%inn,':dte;sarl e'esig i:>ev ew.#ee wilt.apply+tci all three,phases . Other:changes include.the WlfiosutlAtis'to.the design review.process ,::the addition of an inspections procedure;`atid rriore`uso.Oftroeidly langu$ga. Tbo proposlpd &&merits neo.d to be-v o by':atl pitpb owhdrs In-a1 L.thre6 phases of Cattail.Creek Community Association. Tho.documents hit:airailable rat PDP fortriat,,and tray tee requested via email at cnttarlcreekh a(ci?hotmari.coin. The..documents wf11;be seg...-via.:t�turn omarl.. [it your,email, pie e include your name and.pt'otaerty address{ Hnr�l copti�s-aro�1sa avai 4W to.barrow._or to purchase (at a cost of$5,00), and can be requested :by:contacting tr 16-—ik at 40. 024988.. Any geiestions on the dgt.trrttents Wray bp..addressed..tn.toard nrtsmbers, .tayni+o- tanser at. 85-9885 or Sandi Hamilton at_SO- Please return your completed ballot.:ir :the eln+ lay: 1:addatrssed and stamped envelope. Please noted ail ballots must be received no later than March 16 2U0$, Please ittake'sure you marl your ballot on time: We liave had several inquires-regarding the'vacarit B+�ard pusitions:for phase!I. We are excited to meet with the interested candidates to fill these positions and have.:a full board serving our association. Sincerely, Ctirtfill Creek'ConnhuniryAs elatian.Bilrrd Sandi Hatniiton,l?an Madison,.;lustin.Tribitt: Lola Jeffers„Joyniie Hauser;Sindl:.Rttitttnel Page 265 of 270 Page 265 of 270 a g u x a a 3 - :77 --- d RA.71xJT'17)S 3ietvwuwaek -gym itrSa�"r���wv,Ji z�Ai`i's�i`�� ,Hw'� Z� 91 A 9 r S �ysk i LL, i� (' �)),`". �!� kam; j` ^J - - 1PKuQ-! �. v>r fl<e9 � �E-sS'�� �•� �Sl �� /`/s 1 /J: e ! ! � Y rIs" y�ii„� S� T... `=tom t�Vs' �^-,ws�, t s7 � ,,. j � •�\ entqlY 34 41— �r - a k� F d4dsa � : E! 111 3?aCa �,} 1 i -»W fl7r es Ns •9s ay sk.ate `w� y �� �el � �' I „;� t F .:. I,; La _ 1 � �• !-- �g[a � Ott i f ' N "3K �q'+i� �t"d q����•v; a a� n.�i C �/��h �=r� �f„s�fi'%�Y{ ¢iY s 31 xYl�,s�� 'o'jiR a"Zlx QF a FR cl F °��II Q'Y !' ca x �t ea �x 0v " � -.s �e �4�� �1'"� �Y°'; 1 QR .,:.,3i 1F l Qi .s�° € �x9 _..•' ar mtu in. ` W G i u: iE so _ u s ai on a D M FIN 11 Ej' I Page 286 M 270 Page 266 of 270 Ti ........ i3 at , r , ..-.�S,3Sa'.�-,s.•4 -1._. ...hbf«- - - III t lei h. `�,�.s�•, _1: ! .�_ � �. �w I , .-,, ,,f�• :gin. _ �r or +' .n..'. —.t�:�..r3j;a::.,.4..:�;='.•.-.:i..:;.;,,.:..�z:wi:,.'�- mnr.�..'.�:�'�-. � rY �'�c<•• a� ��.�;;r2 �iF_-_.... .... f _.. .^ _..,.RV�1iF�36`+J1'hS•--< � � .`�:,:6��� y�� .. , •. ..y,� .��r� € .� �;.. ''• -'xs., n� �"nm-- ram. � � � ! d.� �Yi'��. ,i�' � ✓/`7 � r. W't �._...:-3!•,....�..ay...4i3",:.-.�...��.0 _«13ti.-::_. .. ..a!w:...:i K'i€...! �F'Xx1��.���y�/,r SI,'.�-� - _ - . �Y �Il• 'S � r 41E_.. ` � } t;••m�+"•'^�'' t. � i�.`i,'� _.-..p,�eL'. '. >"G+4r�''.�3:' ::..:;= 3�:= ,}^�'_'`ems,• r 3r 1 5 '' +;s ,,ti�l.. ,�+'''' :tea` , •.L<b��;nti``° =!.yr• .{��,%J �!`�,'_ir� ��' ' ` i i• 1. .:si i ,... .� .. � —,..:--•(�.-_ ter. � , -3� �.. `• :..�.,; .:.r- fit:':..—_.ice._.. .. 3 tJJ yy • f .: :.� :.per Y „a:.yFr,,ro'. .� r € 1 r -�•. i.«-,..y S_..ai,.l€,...tt':.1:.�_ I..�......... �' y'�� . ri 71 �.4:.:,.:,y„`�' •,._.:-... :; _.�2•':_,,, - -';�'.''""—cam ,+� ...�a' :��..��`�- w w w Wt P., o 26 1 270 Pip 287,;271) Exhibit 15 Subject: DV-15-636C - Count 2 Non Payment $825 - effort to accord From: Peter Thompson <thompson0089@msn.com> Date: 9/16/2015 10:58 AM To:Jennings Law <wayne@jenningslawmt.com> Mr. Jennings, Per your complaint line 19 thru 22, your Plaintiff seeks $825 dollars from the Defendant for dues and assessments per the date of your complaint August 6th, 2015 plus 12% annual interest until the balance is paid in full from the date of your complaint. I am willing to make payment for satisfaction and release of HOA Nonpayment issue per terms above within 30 days of ,your acceptance of the terms expressed above per your complaint lines 19 thru 22. I can line out and mark as resolved these issues of the Rule 11 motion and file the Motion on the 21st of September. We can continue with the other issues presented. I do still have doubts about and wish to validate the legitimacy of the HOA refiled covenants and the alleged resulting entity; My agreeing to make payment per your complaint does not eliminate this issue or any other issue raised via your complaint.' Thanks Peter 406 570 0268 Page 268 of 270 Page 268 o1 270 Exhibit 15 Accounit, 10 0LACKI311t w S7 i�x ,tl F ii0:11(�q QV $U9�?A TO. i�J979 CmUno ih;Perak Fracuskq CMW: I .. tEft'fligHlPI" I1 ! -MWS i hb OatesWOW IW(MAN, t1F. IilMlil4ii1,[u4111 1IIuIIIlJ04leiliI�In11161 : # ch =t�a�beenuiFatizt ,ypur,tJpor�ta� Page 269 of 270 Page 269 of 270 Exhibit : 16 Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation MGIC Rn'a e 'RESEARCH I IRFORMATIOhl, I SOLUTIONS LETTER OF REPRESENTATION Date: October 8, 2011 Re, MGIC Certificate Number: 24785079 Armitage Case Number: 11-3383 Borrower Name, Peter Thompson This letter shalt serve as notice that Armitage Research and Investigative Solutions have been retained by Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC) to reverify, as part of an internal control process, the facts and circumstances surrounding the mortgage loan application by Peter Thompson. Said loan transaction is more specifically identified as the loan for 669 Sycamore Lano, Bozeman, MT 59718. Please note that said Ivan was approved by MGIC for mortgage insurance, Armitage Research and Investigative Solutions have been authorized to act on behalf of MGIC in this instance and to examine all documents and records related to this application. Sincerely, Heather Bodus Investigator 1 r Armitage Research 320 E Buffalo 61.Suite 702 80U-024-n27 Milwaukee,WI 63202 Page 270 of 270 Pago 270 of 270