Save a Forest in Southworth, WA

Southworth Forest Update:

Forest Violators Claim Protests Against Them Are "Defamation"

Posted June 29, 2025 by Southworth Forest

Protest signage stands next to the entrance to the illegally deforested property in Port Orchard. Developers Meghan and Clint Edwards complained to Kitsap County that the impacts listed on the sign amount to defamation despite over 340 exhibits provided by neighbors in their appeal of the Edwards' after-the-fact clear-cutting permit.

Public records requests to Kitsap County have revealed that Southworth clear-cutters and code violators Meghan and Clint Edwards submitted a complaint to the County in April 2025 claiming that neighbors' protests against their forest habitat destruction are "frivolous," "dishonest," "inaccurate," and have "met the standard for civil prosecution related to slander and defamation." They demanded that the County remove protest signage regarding their nearby development.

Neighbors are contesting Edwards' illegal 2019 deforestation at 11090 SE Southworth Dr. in Port Orchard, which has received preliminary after-the-fact permit approval from Kitsap County despite countless errors in the County's review, erroneous submissions from Edwards, and a failure to address environmental impacts already caused by the violation. That process is now in the Hearing Examiner phase, for which the community has assembled more than 340 exhibits demonstrating Edwards' impacts and factual inconsistencies.

The Edwards complaint, which is riddled with grammar and spelling errors, related to a sign placed at the front of a neighboring parcel that protests ten specific impacts caused by their development, all of which supported extensively by the evidence supplied in the appeal of their corrective permit. That temporary sign, affixed to garden stakes, extends into a portion of an easement that they have explicitly disavowed developing in the future. Its audience is the County reviewing staff and the public, aiming to deter future violations in regards to negligent or intentionally unlawful deforestation. The neighbors hosting the sign never received any notice from the County in response to the complaint.

It's not unusual for developers to fight community concerns in defense of their permits, but Meghan and Clint Edwards have shown extraordinarily selfish entitlement in their dealings with the County and neighbors. They have also demonstrated alarming incompetence in their understanding of how permits and the law function, and the appeal of their permit reveals how they have repeatedly violated Title 21 of Kitsap County Code (KCC 21.04.030) in their refusal to understand their responsibilities by County law. Instead, Edwards state the following of the most impacted neighbors:

"I believe the Clemmensen's [SIC] have met the standard for civil prosecution related to slander and defamation as well. The spite structure [the sign] uses language that is inaccurate, misleading, is threatening in nature, false and unfounded in court." - Clint Edwards

Each impact detailed on the sign is supported by the substantial evidence in the appeal of Edwards' permit. Edwards is welcome to file a civil case for defamation against the appellants, and these neighbors, in fact, would welcome an additional opportunity to show the community and the courts that each of the alleged environmental impacts is indeed accurate and protested in good faith. Edwards' claims that a sign can commit "slander" once again shows incompetence about the law, too.

"This spite structure acts as a barrier to the use of the remaining undeveloped portion of the easement or implies non-use simply by its existing barrier to entry. I presume this is intentional and placed as a warning." - Clint Edwards

Presumptions can be dangerous. The sign was moved to its current location to accommodate construction on the neighboring parcel and to place it in parallel with destructive winds that blow off of Edwards' parcel since their violation, an impact included in the appeal of their permit. Those winds badly damaged the previous sign near that location. Legally speaking, a temporary sign placed on garden stakes, of which there are upwards of a hundred in the unused portion of the easement, does not constitute an obstruction unless it is actively blocking the current use, which it does not.

"Some of the accusations (timber trespass for example) listed are related to charges they frivolously filed in court in years past. To now post for public consumption claims that they already attempted to litigate in the past and eventually dismissed due to not meeting the threshold for litigation is dishonest and is provably intentional to cause harm to their neighbors." - Clint Edwards

Edwards again makes careless, foolish assumptions about the legal system as means of demeaning the neighbors protesting their forest violations. Claims against their negligence, impacts, and timber trespass in 2021 were dropped for strategic reasons related to the state's discretionary review process, not merit. And since Edwards' negligence and impacts have continued, similar claims can be filed again after the pending outcome of the County permit.

Those 2021 claims against Edwards were supported by the same kind of evidence presented in the appeal, which is massive in quantity. You can view some of the overwhelming timber trespass evidence on this site, as Edwards removed trees and re-graded on multiple neighboring parcels. They also filed an insurance claim for their timber trespass, for which an insurance adjustor contacted affected neighbors and admitted the damage claim. Once again, Edwards misrepresents the easily provable truth.

"They are showing their spite and distain [SIC] after attempting steal their neighbor's easement rights in court... We have not retaliated to the concerns they have rose [SIC]." - Clint Edwards

After neighbors and the state Department of Natural Resources reported Edwards' original violations in 2019, Edwards responded by proposing to overdevelop the remainder of an easement across the reporting neighbors' parcel. The County identified this proposal as a pointless "spite use." Edwards claimed they needed a superfluous second entrance to their seven acres because "it would be nice to have a place to park [their] boat."

The neighbors, knowing that the original grantor of the easement had never intended for it to exist and testified to that belief, filed a legal claim attempting to extinguish the easement and save the 70 trees remaining in it from Edwards' retaliation. The court decided in favor of Edwards, stating that an accidentally-created easement is enforceable, and Edwards kept that proposed development in their plans all the way through the permit's approval. Any reasonable neighbor would fight a developer to protect their property.

Edwards later admitted that they knew for years that they did not intend to actually development the easement, but they never informed the affected neighbors, who experienced significant emotional distress because of the proposed loss of remaining forest buffer between them and Edwards' new agricultural operations. Edwards even kept an error-riddled legal claim against those neighbors active during most of that time, a claim that stated that the neighbors' planting of trees in the unused portions of the easement amounted to obstruction. Years later, Edwards admitted filing that retaliatory claim "because [they] were mad."

"We have not attempted to thwart the Clemmensen's [SIC] of their right to contest our permit. We have attempted to be reasonable and neighborly throughout the last 5+ years only to be met with vitriol, unrealistic demands, made up narratives..." - Clint Edwards

This statement is perhaps the most disturbing of all, and it shows exactly why communities like Southworth must rise up to confront entitled developers. There is nothing legally that Edwards can do to "thwart" the opportunity of neighbors to protest a deforestation with Kitsap County regulators or in civil court. How would Edwards have "thwarted" an appeal of their permit? Or community protests as seen on this site and social media?

To the best knowledge of the appellants and the community group protesting Edwards' land use, no "vitriol" has ever been leveled against them. On the other hand, Meghan Edwards, who behaved with impatience and petulance at a County-mediated session with the lead appellant, yelled "You guys are so ridiculous!" out her vehicle window at two of the appellants after the damaged sign's replacement. One appellant was verbally and physically assaulted on their property by a person associated with Edwards in 2021 as well.

The very notion that Edwards is an "aggrieved victim" in this scenario is preposterous, as they willfully violated the law, failed to conduct themselves properly with the after-the-fact permit, used the permitting system to retaliate against neighbors, lied about negotiations, and, during that entire time, complained about County fees and delays in allowing them to do what they want. The County gave in to their complaining multiple times, as shown in the appeal.

The demands of neighbors are for the restoration of environmental conditions on their adjacent properties as supported by law. Neighbors challenge Edwards to cite instances "made up narratives," because everything stated to the County, the courts, and to the public in the campaign against Edwards' actions is supported by copious amounts of evidence. If the neighbors' narrative is "made up," then how does Edwards explain the lengthy appeal statement related to their deforestation permit and the 340 exhibits supplied in support of it?

Edwards' attorney confessed during a pre-hearing conference in April 2025 that they expect to call no witnesses and submit no evidence in their defense. This isn't a surprise, because there exists overwhelming evidence of their violations, indignant and combative behavior, and environmental impacts. The hearing date for the County permit appeal is August 7, 2025, and the appellants look forward to the opportunity to argue their "made up narrative" to the Hearing Examiner and later, if necessary, to the courts.

No community deserves to suffer from the arrogance and negligence of developers seeking to destroy forest habitats in their neighborhood. The recent news in Issaquah about similar forest mutilation reinforces that point. With their complaint about signage and other actions protesting their clear-cutting violations, Edwards cements their reputation as exactly the kind of dishonest developer and entitled homeowner that people dread in their communities. Southworth and Port Orchard must stand together to hold such developers accountable for their attitudes and actions.

Developers Meghan and Clint Edwards claim that no wind or dust impacts have been caused to neighboring properties because of their clear-cutting. In this screenshot from a video, wind from the deforested area whips up a tornado of dust at its boundary with another property in April of 2023. No vehicular traffic on the road was involved. Edwards complains that these impacts are a "made up narrative."

Edwards cleared and re-graded up to 1,000 square feet on the property to their northwest in the original 2019 violation, cutting and shaving trees. The red line denotes the surveyed and marked property line. This area is the last remaining natural buffer between the two properties, and Edwards then proposed removing all remaining vegetation to the left for an additional road entrance. Edwards complains that neighbors' timber trespass claims are "frivolous."

An alternate view of the previous photo to Edwards' northwest above shows damages from the opposite direction. Trees, huckleberries, and smaller shrubs, including salal and sword ferns, were eliminated by Edwards, who also pushed 4 to 5 inches of dirt and boulders onto the neighboring parcel. Edwards complains that neighbors' timber trespass claims are "frivolous."

Before photo: The northwest corner of Edwards' parcel is shown partway through the deforestation process. Red lines denote the surveyed and marked property line. Neither gate post shown is on Edwards' property. The current road enters Edwards' property from the north. Edwards did not have permission to remove these trees, causing the landowner to weep.

After photo: The same area seen in the previous photo is shown three years later. Edwards removed fir trees on the property to the left (north) without permission, exacerbating heat, wind, and aesthetic impacts on multiple neighboring properties. Edwards complains that neighbors' timber trespass claims are "frivolous."