Romans 13:9
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"  and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

WELCOME TO THE HOME PAGE 
OF THE  
W.A.T.C.H. NETWORK!
We Are The Cedar Ridge Homeowners
A Forum For Freedom and Liberty!
After Reading the Legal Disclaimers, Scroll Down For Our Home Page Background Briefing....

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - READ FIRST BEFORE PROCEEDING:  Any visiting or use of this site (including, but not limited to, just reading it) constitutes FULL AND COMPLETE acceptance of our Terms of Use and other policies as herein stated and hereafter amended.  Please scroll quickly down to the bottom of this page to read our partial Legal Disclaimers and Terms of Use policies before using this site in any way.  Legal Disclosure & Disclaimer - Important to read first and completely!

ADDITIONAL LEGAL NOTICE TO THE CEDAR RIDGE ACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (C.R.A.H.A.), IT'S SUPPORTERS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALL CRAHA AFFILIATES:  OUR ATTORNEY HAS BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CRAHA ATTORNEY GLEN PSZCZOLA ABOUT THESE  9-11 ITEMS, SO IT WOULD BE WISE FOR CRAHA, (AND ANY AND ALL OF IT'S REPRESENTATIVES AND/OR SUPPORTERS AND/OR AFFILIATES OF 
SUPPORTERS, ) TO HEED AND COMPLY WITH  THE FOLLOWING:

ATTENTION CRAHA:  SOME 9-11 ITEMS OF 

PUBLIC LEGAL  NOTICE 
 to the 
"CEDAR RIDGE ACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION"
("C.R.A.H.A.")

1.  STAY OFF OUR PROPERTY

2.  DO NOT SAY OR WRITE ANY FURTHER UNTRUE THINGS ABOUT OUR BILL-PAYING REPUTATIONS, OR EITHER OF OUR PERSONAL 
AND/OR PROFESSIONAL REPUTATIONS

3.  STOP SAYING WE ARE MANDATORY MEMBERS OF THE CRAHA; OUR ATTORNEY SAYS WERE NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED, IN ANY WAY, TO CRAHA, AND THAT CRAHA HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO CLAIM TO BE A MANDATORY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION!

4.  DO NOT SAY OR WRITE (OR THREATEN TO SAY OR WRITE) ANY FURTHER UNTRUE THINGS ABOUT US TO ANYONE. INCLUDING (but not limited to,) OUR  NEIGHBORS, OUR FAMILY AND/OR FRIENDS, OUR ATTORNEY,  CREDIT AGENCIES OR BUSINESSES,  COUNTY OFFICIALS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, RECORDERS, OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL

5.  WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH CRAHA, THEREFORE, DO NOT ACCESS OUR PROPERTY, DO ANY WORK ON, OR EFFECTING, OUR PROPERTY, THEN  BILL US , OR FRAUDULENTLY STATE THAT WE ARE IN  AGREEMENT WITH CRAHA; WE ARE NOT AND HAVE NEVER BEEN IN AGREEMENT WITH CRAHA, INCORPORATED, AND WE HEREBY DISPUTE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS,  AND/OR ALLEGED JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SUCH DISPUTED CLAIMS, MADE BY CRAHA (and/or its supporters, attorney, representatives, and any affiliate of such) 
MADE NOW OR AT ANYTIME IN THE PAST.

6.  STAY AWAY FROM OUR UTILITY LINES AND 
DO NOT FURTHER DAMAGE OUR PROPERTY

7.  DO NOT CUT ANY OF OUR TREES OR NATURAL VEGETATION AND OR  FURTHER DAMAGE OUR PRIVACY SCREENS AND/OR BUFFERS

8.  DO NOT SPRAY TOXIC CHEMICALS ON OR NEAR OUR PROPERTY OR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIORNMENT

9. DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR CONTACT US IN ANY WAY, AND BY ANY MEANS,  INCLUDING EMAILS OR POSTS

In addition to the "9 Points of Public Notice" to the CRAHA, we require the following:
10.  REMOVE ALL ILLEGAL OR DISPUTED FILINGS: CRAHA must immediately begin action to remove the filing which  may have clouded our property title, the so-called "Assignment of Road Maintenance Agreements" from Talmo to CRAHA,  which we dispute pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Washington State (and Federal Law) regarding the LEGAL filing of real estate documents with county auditors/recorders.  
11.  DO NOT MISREPRESENT FACTS CONCERNING CRAHA:  CRAHA needs to be informed that if they misrepresent their authority to a neighbor/supporter,and in turn that supporter of CRAHA violates ours (or any other neighbor's)  property rights (or other legal rights,)  CRAHA may be subjecting that neighbor to legal liability, (or CRAHA to legal liability to any unsuspecting neighbor that CRAHA may have mislead), if CRAHA misrepresented facts concerning their alleged mandatory authority or their alleged collection rights to collect alleged "debts."

Sincerely, 
Douglas J. Bunge and Lori I. Bunge
Property Owners; "Cedar Ridge Acres"
Homeowners Road Maintenance Agreement
October 07, 1991

click here for the satirical
"No King of Our Road"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page Background Briefing....

PROTECT RURAL FREEDOM IN PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON!

This website is a place where property owners and residents  in our neighborhood that is  known as the Cedar Ridge Acres can freely express their views and opinions regarding our neighborhood. Also a place to obtain accurate information about the issues facing our community regarding our roads.

Many of us have grown to not like or accept the way things have been handled in our neighborhood by the alleged mandatory homeowners association named the Cedar Ridge Acres Homeowners Association ("CRAHA").  This was first brought to our attention by one of the founders of the original, Voluntary  CRAHA, Mr. Mike McInnis, (past Vice-President of the Cedar Ridge Acres Homeowners Association)  in early November of 2005.  

The original Cedar Ridge Acres Homeowners Association was intended, according to Mr. Mike McInnis, to be a VOLUNTARY H.O.A. allowing for VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION by our neighbors for the sole purpose of providing an orderly way to collect VOLUNTARY contributions to maintain the roadways.  Yet since it was originally incorporated (and at least one of the recorded ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, namely OURS, does NOT ALLOW for an INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, or anything less than UNANIMOUS APPROVAL of all actions and/or collections for road maintenance, including, but not limited to,  the setting of a dues structure or the planning of road projects, or for any changes to the Agreement(s),) according to Mr. McInnis to watchnetwork.org, 
"we knew we could not require MANDATORY participation of  property owners..."

Yet beginning in approximately 2004,  first CRAHA "President" Ray Harries, then now CRAHA "President" Richard Mathews, have  tried to change CRAHA into a MANDATORY H.O.A., yet with quite a bit of resistance.  Yet do they have the right to change it?  Us, along with our attorney say NO,  (and other attorney(s) and neighbors may also!)  CRAHA should be left as a voluntary HOA, and (since the road is paved,) DISSOLVED!

BACKGROUND:  PAVING THE ROADS.....TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.......

I'll be the first to admit that I was under a false impression with regard to the current CRAHA leadership several years ago. I went out to the front of our property and found them chain-sawing down quite a number of our frontage trees that  did not impede the flow of traffic and that were part of our NATURAL VEGETATION BUFFER according to survey.

We received NO PHONE CALL or REQUEST FOR PERMISSION from both of us as LEGAL OWNERS. When my wife asked them to stop, they refused and said they had a right to because of CRAHA's "By-Laws."  THEY EMPHATICALLY GAVE THE IMPRESSION, BY BOTH WORDS AND ACTIONS, THAT THEY HAD A RIGHT TO CHAINSAW AND HAUL AWAY OUR TIMBER.  YET OUR ATTORNEY HAS EMPHATICALLY SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHAINSAW AND HAUL AWAY OUR TIMBER. 

They then EMPHASIZED HOW WONDERFUL A NEW PAVED ROAD WOULD BE!  WHO WOULDN'T THINK A PAVED ROAD WOULD BE WONDERFUL!  No more pot holes! Cool I thought. At what a price. Great!   According to CRAHA, it would be a mistake to let Kitsap County control the neighborhood roads (even though we pay property taxes every year, and continue to.....)  CRAHA HAS CLAIMED ALL ALONG THAT IT JUST WANTS WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS.....

My wife and I have lived in this area for almost 8 years now, and moved here in order to  enjoy a quiet, rural and simple environment, after moving from the hectic city. We have voluntarily and faithfully  paid our road maintenance dues every year, under the impression (promoted by CRAHA) that we were to pay them, and no one else, for road maintenance. We even  paid CRAHA (again, due to  what may later be determined by a judge to have been potential misrepresented facts on the part of CRAHA)  approximately $2,292.85 for an equal share of the paving cost because Ray Harries and CRAHA threatened to place a lien on our real property if we did not pay, even though we never consented to have our roadway real property paved.  We never consented to have CRAHA do any work on our real property! Harries collected DOUBLE road maintenance dues from us, claiming that he had a right to collect an UNEQUAL amount from us. Then, Ray Harries attempted to collect a DOUBLE amount for paving from us.  When we resisted, he then said approximately $2,199.25 was our NEGOTIATED amount for both properties, all the while acting like he had mandatory authority over us.

THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD:  VOLUNTARY AND MANDATORY AT THE SAME TIME!

The paving of the road was VOLUNTARY at least that's what they said before paving. Then, SHAZAM, the road was paved and now it's MANDATORY. How does that work? You go figure. Not only is it now MANDATORY,  according to their published letters, if you do not pay "your part, " they'll put a lien on your land or use the name of the Sheriff of Kitsap County to forcefully "sell" your real property in an alleged "Sheriff's sale" (Attorney Glen Pszczola letter, dated September 06, 2006, to "non-supporters, alleging liens placed on 5 properties on Bobcat Lane SE.)  According to one Cedar Ridge neighbor, these threatened "liens" have not been substantiated or proven to actually exist. So, does such a threat constitute a potential "misrepresentation of facts" as defined in the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act? 

HANDS OFF FOR KITSAP COUNTY
click here for the satirical"No King of Our Road"

Then to top it off, only 2 inches please, the road isn't to be handed over to the county as was made very clear according to the road maintenance agreement set up over 10 years ago. I also find it interesting that at craha.org this is on the front page. So if it's not their intent, why is it there?

My other major concern regarding CRAHA is their claim of authority over our/your land. That's right, they claim to have authority they do not have.  If you noticed when you signed your deed at closing, this all important statement that Ray Harries refers to in his letter dated Feb. 27th is no where to be found. This supposed all important statement is ONE SENTENCE tucked away obscurely in something known as a "real estate  contract." What the heck is a "real estate contract" and does it give Harries legal authority to form a MANDATORY homeowners association AFTER THE FACT (i.e. after real estate closings, etc.?)  Good question!

HARRIES AND THE SO-CALLED "AUTHORITATIVE" SENTENCE FOR NEIGHBORS

Ray Harries claimed in his February 27, 2006 letter to "Members" that a ONE SENTENCE QUOTE from a real estate contract forms the basis for his alleged authority as the President" of a 'MANDATORY" CRAHA. Ray Harries said the following:

"Most importantly, a condition was placed on all lots as follows:  "THERE EXISTS OR THERE MAY BE FORMED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS A HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS AND STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES IN THE PLAT WHICH BUYER AGREES TO JOIN AND PARTICIPATE IN".  This is such an important covenant on our land that I took the time to check the chain of title of several association members on Harland and Woodchuck who have failed to support our dues structure for up to ten years and those other members who claim that our association does not exist.  They are mistaken." - quoted from craha.org

They are not mistaken, rather he is! The following information is reliable and accurate according to competent legal counsel, period!

A BIG DISPUTE:  In a May 11, 2006 letter from CRAHA attorney Glen Pszczola, the CRAHA attorney reiterates  the questionable "real estate contract" authorization for CRAHA, then mentions other one-sentence quotes from other obscure real estate documents, possibly  in order to "piece meal" some authority for CRAHA.  

Yet our recorded Road Maintenance Agreement of October, 1991 SUPERCEDES many (if not all) of the documents Pszczola may have "piece-mealed"  his client CRAHA's alleged authority from, and as mentioned in Pszczola's May 11, 2006 letter.  ALL this very questionable "piece-mealed" authority allegations have been made "AFTER THE FACT;" after CRAHA took actions that ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR PER RECORDED LAND DEEDS, ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, or by even some of the documents they potentially misquote and potentially misapply, AND AS AN INCORPORATED HOA, (which is SPECIFICALLY contrary to our ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,) our attorney believes this is all highly questionable from a legal standpoint.  

WE, THEREFORE, hereby, and have,  PERMANENTLY DISPUTED, pursuant to the FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT, The Revised Code of Washington (making nonconsensual common law liens UNENFORCEABLE, ) the Fair Credit Reporting Act, State and Federal laws barring MALICIOUS, FRIVOLOUS, OR VEXATIOUS PROSECUTION OR LITIGATION, and other state and federal consumer protection, (and other) laws, ALL OF THE CLAIMS OF THE CEDAR RIDGE ACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, RAY HARRIES, RICHARD MATHEWS, GLEN PSZCZOLA, and by any and all SUPPORTERS OF CRAHA, including (but not limited to,) any and all of their residential, business,  (or other ) affiliates.

They are not mistaken, rather he is. The following information is reliable and accurate according to competent legal counsel, period!

A  real estate contract is an legal agreement between two or more parties (as named IN the agreement; all parties must SIGN the real estate contract to make it binding) usually for the purchase and/or financing of a piece of real property, and is usually between a BUYER and a SELLER.  For example, Crown Properties/Talmo was a SELLER party in a number of  real estate contracts between itself and BUYERS of lots in our neighborhood.  In Harries February 27, 2006 letter to "Members," he quotes ONE SENTENCE from a CROWN PROPERTIES/Talmo ("Seller") and "Buyer" real estate contract (interestingly he does not SOURCE REFERENCE his quote) and emphatically suggests that such real estate contract gives him the MANDATORY legal authority to set up and run his MANDATORY CRAHA.

LOOKING FOR AUTHORITY WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS

Also, Ray Harries' quote from said real estate contracts, 9and the other possibly "piece-mealed" documents he and the CRAHA attorney may have attempted to use as authoritative,)  are  vague, unspecific, inapplicable,  and has nothing to do with requiring a membership to a MANDATORY Home Owners Association!  His claim that the ONE SENTENCE QUOTE mandates for a MANDATORY HOA is obviously ultra vires of that contract (ultra vires meaning "exceeeding the limits" of the contract. ) and against the restrictive terms of our Road Maintenance Agreement. Taken in context, that language in the real estate contract  is PROVISIONAL rather than a REQUIREMENT, and  was set forth to allow for a possible VOLUNTARY  HOA (since the language DOES NOT state a MANDATORY HOA, it is therefore NOT legally safe to ASSUME a MANDATORY HOA.)  

MISSING COVENANT, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR AN alleged MANDATORY CEDAR RIDGE ACREAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION!

click here for the satirical
"No King of Our Road"

Furthermore,  since again no separate "Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Cedar Ridge Acres Homeowners Association" were  filed and recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor/Recorder's Office at the time of CRAHA's establishment in 1995, and again, it was established as a VOLUNTARY HOA, Harries is exceeding the language and meaning of the contract.  According to Mr. Michael McInnis, the original CRAHA intended for financial contribution for maintenance and repair dues was to be  VOLUNTARY.  According to Mr. McInnis and his legal counsel,  at least 2 of the recorded ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS (as does ours) REQUIRE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF ALL OWNERS before  the setting of a "dues structure," collection, liens, etc.  FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THE ENTERING INTO THE HOMEOWNERS ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT of October 07, 1991 ITSELF REQUIRED UNANIMOUS SIGNATURES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL SIGNATURES OF BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE!

REALLY RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS THAT REALLY DO EXIST!

Our existing, recorded Homeowners Road Maintenance Agreement is very restrictive;  ONLY AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION IS ALLOWED, UNANIMOUS, SIGNED APPROVAL of ALL OWNERS (both HUSBAND AND WIFE) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY ACTION, any monies collected ARE TO BE COLLECTED EQUALLY, IRREGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF THE OWNERS PROPERTY.     (Harries has attempted to collect DOUBLE DUES and even DOUBLE PAVING PAYMENTS from Owners.  Yet in our case, our two properties were originally ONE PROPERTY at the time of the signing of the Homeowners Road Maintenance Agreement.)  Again, our Road Maintenance Agreement DOES NOT ALLOW FOR UNEQUAL MANDATORY COLLECTIONS! 

Furthermore, according to our legal counsel, Ray Harries does not have any mandatory authority to collect any monies from Owners; pursuant to the Homeowners Road Maintenance Agreement or
existing "chain of titles."  According to Counsel, his claims are unfounded.

According to Mike McInnis, there were a number of PRACTICAL reasons why the original real CRAHA was established.  Again, it was difficult to get the REQUIRED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL of all the Property Owners.  SINCE IT WAS HIGHLY UNLIKELY ANY OWNER WOULD VOTE TO FINANCIALLY ENCUMBER OR LIEN THEMSELVES (and to violate the Agreement could constitute BREACH OF CONTRACT) under the Road Maintenance Agreement, getting Owners to unanimously approve mandatory dues was difficult. According to Mr. Mcinnis, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A UNANIMOUS VOTE FOR A DUES STRUCTURE under the Homeowners Road Maintenance Agreement of October 07, 1991.

There WAS a unanimous vote in October of 1991 to enter into the Homeowners Road Maintenance Agreement, filed in Kitsap County October 07, 1991.   Yet again, this recorded Agreement was obviously constructed to give every Owner an equal say in any mandatory road maintenance or repair.  THEREFORE, AN EXTREMELY FAIR AND EQUITABLE, UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS WAS REQUIRED OF ALL OWNERS UNDER THE AGREEMENT, INCLUDING UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE.  Such a fair term of our  Agreement is certainly consistent with the community property laws of our State of Washington, in full effect at the time of our closing. According to Mike McInnis, the formation of the REAL  VOLUNTARY CRAHA was simply a more convenient way to collect VOLUNTARY dues in order to maintain and repair the roads;   not necessarily to pave it or do other pet projects (although, that would have been possible, again, through VOLUNTARY means and/or with UNANIMOUS, SIGNED APPROVAL of ALL PROPERTY OWNERS so effected.)  As we have stated, the real estate contract does not  apply to subsequent purchasers anyway!

THE "MERGER DOCTRINE" AND TWO-PARTY REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS

Our competent legal counsel has wisely advised us that due to a well-established principal of law called the "merger doctrine," when the real estate contract (Harries quoted from)  was FULFILLED ( through a STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED - FULFILLMENT of August 17, 1998) and  through a subsequent sale closing, "pay-off" of loan, etc. THE TERMS OF THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT "MERGED" INTO THE TERMS OF THE DEED, AND THEREFORE the terms of the real estate contract WERE EXTINGUISHED BY THE NEW TERMS OF THE STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED.  In essence, the terms of a statutory warranty deed  can (but not necessarily DO) run with the land, whereas the terms of a real estate contract are just between the signing parties to the agreement,  and can be subsequently "extinguished" by the superceding terms of the statutory warranty deed (that is awarded to the SELLER at a sales closing, so that he or she then has  the legal right to {in turn}  sell his or her property to his/her BUYER.)  IF THE TERMS OF THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY TRANSFERRED INTO THE STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED OF FULFILLMENT, THEN THEY ARE EXTINGUISHED BY THE NEW LANGUAGE AND TERMS OF THE STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED.  Again, this usually happens at a real estate closing, (when  the original property purchaser now  becomes the SELLER, pays off his or her real estate contract loan, and is issued his or her STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED OF FULFILLMENT, in order then to SELL his or her real property to the current  BUYER, who then is issued their own STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED, as is the case of a Buyer who purchases property with a mortgage.)  Remember, this all happens at a real estate closing, and has the effect of EXTINGUISHING the original terms of the real estate contract (unless SPECIFIC terms are SPECIFICALLY TRANSFERRED into the Statutory Warranty Deed of Fulfillment.)  According to our legal counsel, only the terms of the Statutory Warranty Deed ("the Deed") can be binding upon future purchasers. We say "can be" because that would depend on a number of other legal principals that can be discussed in future articles.

REAL COVENANTS VERSUS FALSE COVENANTS

As a matter of principal, real property covenants are more difficult to enforce the older they are, or if they are controversial, contradict, or are inconsistent with existing, current law; as is sometimes the case with the (oftentimes considered) archaic concept of "equitable servitudes" (English common law) and other difficult to enforce, vague and ancient legal remnants of the past.  (REMEMBER:  CONSULT WITH YOUR ATTORNEY FOR ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY POINTS OF LAW DISCUSSED HEREIN ON THIS WEBSITE.)

Of course, there are examples of  "old" covenants (as is the MARRIAGE COVENANT,  GOD'S COVENANTS WITH HIS PEOPLE, etc) that many in our Society believe to be JUST AS ENFORCEABLE/VALID AS TIME GOES BY.  The obligations of these "legal and binding covenants" DO NOT necessarily diminish with time.   Of course REALLY decent folks feel REAL SYMPATHIES towards the REAL victims of  "broken marriage covenants," etc., but ...we are talking "real estate property rights" herein.  WE JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT WE BELIEVE IN THE CONCEPT OF REAL COVENANTS; WE JUST DO NOT AGREE WITH FALSE COVENANTS.

Furthermore,  NO "Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions for the Cedar Ridge Acres Homeowners Association" or for a MANDATORY homeowners association, were ever recorded in Kitsap County (with a unique Auditor's File Number, or  "AFN".)  The CRAHA existed for nearly 9 YEARS as a VOLUNTARY 501c3 NONPROFIT CORPORATION for the collection of VOLUNTARY road maintenance and repair dues.  According to, and verified by Mr. Mike McInnis, the original Board Members set up a VOLUNTARY corporation because they felt it would be easier to collect VOLUNTARY dues versus seeking the REQUIRED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL of all Owners (as some of the Road Maintenance Agreements, that ARE LEGALLY BINDING, REQUIRE.) any time money or work was needed for the roadway.

According to our legal counsel, it is clear  that Ray Harries does not possess any legal authority whatsoever to run a MANDATORY CRAHA, conduct any activities related to such, or to record any legally-questionable documents AFTER THE FACT which may cloud any Owner's clear and legal  title.  

NO "IMPLIED AUTHORITY" IN THE LAND

click here for the satirical
"No King of Our Road"

According to competent legal counsel that concerned neighbors have collectively and individually sought, the alleged Cedar Ridge Acres Homeowners Association, "President" Ray Harries, Attorney Glen Pszczola, or any CRAHA board member  have no legal authority when it comes to mandating you or I to pay anything to CRAHA.. Of course, our opinion as stated herein on this website DOES NOT and CANNOT substitute for the advice of your legal counsel, but we did want you to be fully and OBJECTIVELY informed and aware that there are legal opinions concerning the alleged authority of CRAHA that starkly contrast and greatly differ from  those of Ray Harries, Glen Pszczola, and the other CRAHA Board Members.

Please also be aware that if Harries, CRAHA, Pszczola, or any CRAHA Board Member does not have legal authority to act on behalf of our neighborhood, do nonconsensual contracting/construction work, non- consensually access neighbors' real properties, etc. then it may be very legally unwise for any neighbor to aid or assist in such "activities."  According to former Voluntary CRAHA Vice President Mr. Michael McInnnis, the CRAHA (established 1995-1996) was never intended to be a MANDATORY homeowners association, due to the fact that the originating board members KNEW they lacked the legal authority to set up such a MANDATORY entity.  AGAIN, THE CRAHA WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED AS A 501C3 NONPROFIT VOLUNTARY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE COLLECTION OF VOLUNTARY ROAD MAINTENANCE DUES!  This fact has been verified via statements made to us by the reliable and reputable source  Mr. Michael McInnis, former Marine and former Vice President of CRAHA.

MORE EXPENSIVE PET PROJECTS ON THE WAY?

My wife Lori and I, (as are other decent neighbors,) are concerned about the future of  CRAHA.. What other pet projects of the current and evolved  CRAHA are on the way and at what cost to Owners? Does Harries feel he can force nonconsensual work on property Owners when the legal authority (for the current attempted establishment of a mandatory homeowners association) is in legal dispute and potential litigation?   Does Harries (a licensed land surveyor) or Steve Hettema, CRAHA Finance and Budget Board Member (a mortgage broker)  expect neighbors to willingly surrender their real estate (through a threatened Kitsap County "Sheriff's sale")  for a light post, mailbox, street benches, or even one more inch of asphalt?  How does the current Kitsap County Sheriff feel about his name being used in such a context?  Our legal counsel has strongly advised us that Harries, as the current so-called President (and most visible and public figure) of CRAHA, or any other CRAHA public Board Member,  DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL OR GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR MANDATORY ENFORCEMENT OF ANYTHING OVER PROPERTY OWNERS and it is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE whether he should be sending out any letters containing threats of foreclosure, liens, etc. (Please reference information related to the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT and the FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT;  doing an internet search on these two laws will be very illuminating!)  We did not want to neglect to verify these  facts related to the non-authoritative position of CRAHA, and we have done so a number of times with our attorney.  SUCH COUNSEL HAS TAKEN PLACE  OVER A PERIOD OF NEARLY 2 YEARS; ever since our real property timber was nonconsensually cut and hauled away and our natural vegetation buffer (that exists according to survey) was nonconsensually cut and damaged by Harries and his CRAHA "work crew" in July of 2004.

POTENTIAL ULTRA VIRES BREACHES OF EXISTING ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS

In addition, our utility lines were damaged and we lost utility service 4 times (once on September 11, 2004) due to
CRAHA's careless grading along the shoulder lines of the roadway.  A telephone repairman who investigated the damage verified to us that lost telephone service was due to the grading WHICH WAS CONTRACTED BY CRAHA AND HARRIES. The repairman verified to us that a number of other neighbors has lost service the same day and also due to the careless grading.  THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT UTILITY LINES ARE NOT TO BE DISTURBED DURING ANY CONSTRUCTION OR EXCAVATION WORK and certainly does not constitute "ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR" and is certainly NOT in compliance with existing UTILITY EASEMENTS and RIGHTS OF UTILITY ACCESS as outlined in a number of existing ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS.  Furthermore, the utility companies have verified to us that anyone who damages the utility lines  are liable to the utility company for damages, etc (and probably to the utility consumer/property owner also.)

WHO WOULDN'T LIKE A PAVED ROAD?

SURE, EVERYONE LOVES A PAVED ROAD...BUT LIKE EVERYTHING IN LIFE, IT HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN THE STRICT PERIMETERS OF THE REAL ESTATE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS!

So, should some CRAHA Board Members be able to force their  paved road and (other nonconsensual projects) on unwilling property Owners via  lien and foreclosure threats, (using, in their published letters, the powerful office of the Sheriff of Kitsap County and/or the color of law) in lieu of CRAHA's disputed legal authority? Did they get the permission from the Sheriff of Kitsap County to use his name and office in such a context?  Is that what "being a good neighbor" is all about?  We highly doubt Mr. Roger's would agree with such tactics...we never ONCE saw Fred Rogers (on his TV show MR ROGER'S NEIGHBORHOOD) say "won't you be my neighbor?" and then threaten to lien his neighbor's property!

So we set up this website for those of us who have clued into what's really going on with regard to CRAHA.  A place to put your views up and where it's ok to disagree with the way things have been handled. Many Owners, like us, have invested a multitude of hours and a multitude of dollars, both mechanically and in materials, in the investment and improvement of our  properties. WE HAVE QUITE A CONSENSUAL LIEN ON OUR OWN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS!  Threatening the legally-held investments of decent citizens for potentially frivolous reasons is very unwise and can be quite controversial and/or highly consequential.  Assisting or aiding in such is also consequential;  please do not fall into any traps!  Let not the CRAHA controversy divide decent neighbor against decent neighbor.

Please do not infer anything personally negative towards ANYONE from the material at this site; none is intended.  OUR SOLE AND SINCERE INTENTION IS TO DISCUSS IMPORTANT PUBLIC ISSUES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, RESPONSIBLY PRACTICE OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXERCISE, THE PROTECTION OF  OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, THE PROTECTION OUR LEGAL RIGHTS, and (hopefully) the protection of all YOUR important rights, too!  "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF."  THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.

JOIN YOUR NEIGHBORS IN STANDING UP FOR OUR RIGHTS!

So please consider the material at this website carefully and even prayerfully.  Please contact us if we can assist you with any necessary clarification of any confusion, or with other concerns related to CRAHA, etc. We would also like to have suggestions and ideas for Kitsap County control and maintenance of the roads, since that was the ORIGINAL INTENT  of the LEGALLY BINDING ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS i.e., handing it over to the county.  Join the WATCH NETWORK - a growing number of law-abiding neighbors in support of their private property rights as protected by the Constitution of the United States of America and existing state and federal laws.  We are for private property rights, a safe and secure neighborhood, crime prevention and awareness, truthful information, ethics, equity, and fairness for all neighbors.

Imagine a road that had been COMPLETELY PAID FOR prior to paving, where the money was collected PURELY ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS with no double messages ( WITHOUT some neighbors put in the position of feeling taken advantage of) and without threats or bad feelings.   Yes...IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY IF THE CURRENT, ALLEGED MANDATORY CRAHA  HAD COMPLIED WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE REAL VOLUNTARY CRAHA as originally established!  The road could have been voluntarily paid for (through "voluntary fund raising,") THEN paved, THEN turned over to Kitsap County as originally intended;  done all  within the proper legal perimeters and within the existing legal limitations.  Yet according to Counsel, the current alleged CRAHA may have crossed existing perimeters and limitations, ultra vires of existing Agreements and Deeds.

The bottom line is, the end doesn't justify the means!

PLEASE NOTE IN YOUR EMAILS IF YOU WISH YOUR VIEWS TO BE POSTED ON THIS SITE.  EMAIL US AT:
watchnetters@yahoo.com     
 loreabbey@yahoo.com
bungefamily@cpurity.com

EMAIL GUIDELINES:  

WE ARE A NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORK. All email sent to watchnetwork. org to ANY of our affiliated email addresses, is considered "public exchange" information.  That means, it may be shared with other participants of watchnetwork. org.  

All email marked as "confidential and restricted" AT THE TIME THAT THE EMAIL IS SENT TO US may be  handled as private and confidential.  YOU MUST BE VERY SPECIFIC. YOU MUST INFORM US PRIOR TO INVOLVEMENT IN OUR EMAIL NETWORK, AND PRIOR TO SENDING, OR RECEIVING, ANY EMAILS ON OUR EMAIL NETWORK, THAT YOU WISH TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, otherwise, we will consider any interactions with the network to be public exchange.

ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED for all information written on the watchnetwork.org web site, and all EMAIL UPDATES or any and all affiliated communications.  YOU MAY NOT COPY, PUBLISH, or  DISTRIBUTE ANY INFORMATION, IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER,  FROM the watchnetwork.org web site, ANY OTHER WEB SITE ON bungechord.com, or any watchnetwork.org  EMAIL UPDATES or any other affiliated service or site, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AND WRITTEN PERMISSION of both Douglas J. Bunge and Lori I. Bunge, and from any author quoted or hyper-linked site applicable from the watchnetwork.org or bungechord.com web sites, or any affiliated web site.  Contact both of us for written permission, if necessary.

UPDATED
May, 2006
September, 2006
October, 2006

All Rights Reserved. 
2006  watchnetwork.org and  bungechord.com  
Douglas J. Bunge and Lori I. Bunge

click here for the satirical
"No King of Our Road"

LEGAL NOTICE:  THE SATIRE CONTAINED ON watchnetwork.org is FICTIONAL, COMEDY SATIRE ONLY.  ALL SATIRE ON watchnetwork.org is just that, SILLY COMEDY SATIRE only, and should not be construed as serious, literal, statements of fact.  No specific Homeowners Association is being described in any of the satirical comedy as found in any area of watchnetwork.org. Any references to HOA's is intended to refer to HOA's in general, and NOT to any specific HOA.  Please do make such inferences, or let any such imaginings enter your head;  just enjoy the comedy!  Any similarity to any person, whether living or deceased,  is not intended and is purely coincidental.

Return to top of page