PART 4: The Whitewash—How Whatcom County's "Independent" Investigation Was Designed to Find Nothing

Brian Gass
Jan 19
12 min read

Updated: Feb 23

The Report Minimized Power, Hid Conflicts, and Ignored the Victims

In PART 3 of our investigative report, we reviewed the evidence presented to Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney Eric Richey. There were two properties in question, 4470 Castlerock Dr, 8658, and 8366 Blaine Rd, both in Blaine, WA. You can see the details of the transactions here: (will open up a new tab). They involved the purchase and sale of properties by the corrupt Whatcom County Natural Resources Planner, Matt Mahaffie, and he used his inside knowledge and position as a REGULATOR to benefit himself at the expense of the public.

Eric Richey, who has a history of operating in the best interest of himself and his department, received the complaint and hired outside counsel for the county, Kristin Anger of Summit Law Group, who then hired attorney Kathleen Haggard of Haggard & Ganson LLP to "investigate" the corruption allegations. Three layers of deniability.

There were two reports issued:

Here is the first report if you want to download it:

The first report WAS SO BAD (according to sources) that the Whatcom County Council made the "investigator" go back and actually interview people OTHER THAN JUST PLANNERS!

So on August 23, 2024 a "Supplemental Report" was filed. Here is that one:

Let's get to the end first:

This investigation was supposed to determine if a REGULATOR used his position to enrich himself.

Unfortunately, when Whatcom County announced it had completed an “independent investigation” into allegations against the corrupt Natural Resources Planner Matt Mahaffie, the County framed the outcome as reassuring: no misuse of position, no improper influence, no wrongdoing.

Instead of finding the truth, the investigation was designed to FIND NOTHING and screw over the victims. Here are the GLARING ISSUES with the "investigation" we want to highlight:

Cherry Picking the Law to Narrow the Scope
Not Interviewing the Actual VICTIMS
Not Interviewing Key Witnesses like the VICTIMS, the DUAL AGENT real estate agents, and hiding others
Not Examining ANY transaction documents, like Purchase and Sale, Settlement Statements
Suborning Perjury and Publishing Known False Statements
Minimizing the Effect of Mahaffie buying 7.5 acres for $10K and selling mitigation credits for $400,000 an acre!

That conclusion in Prosecutor Richey's email is only possible if you IGNORE ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE that went against covering the corrupt planner Matt Mahaffie and the county's asses. They weren't interested in investigating what happened when a critical areas regulator, whose determinations directly influenced whether a property was buildable, encumbered, or effectively worthless, ended up making MASSIVE PROFITS in a very short amount of time, doing nothing.

And the investigation was not interested in examining how that power translates into potential private enrichment totaling $2-3 MILLION DOLLARS from one property he obtained for free.

Let's look over the evidence.

Cherry Picking the Statue

The investigation was supposed to see of a REGULATOR used his position to "increase his profits"...what the hell? It's not just about "increasing profits," it's about whether he MANIPULATED THE PROCESS TO ENRICH HIMSELF!

Let's look at the law, this incompetent "investigator" partially cited:

Haggard chose the narrowest of (1) for her investigation and didn't look at the next three sections.

“Increase His Profits” Is a Evasive Question

The investigation framed the inquiry as whether Mahaffie “used his position to increase his profits.”

That phrase is soft and slippery — and it dodges what the public actually needs answered:

Did Mahaffie fraudulently leverage his position as a regulator to enrich himself?

A regulator does not need to review their own permits to profit. He can profit if he:

applies discretionary standards inconsistently
imposes costly delay and uncertainty
influences perceived marketability
acquires property at depressed prices
and benefits from later reversals or clarifications

The investigation never seriously examined that mechanism.

A Regulator Who Controlled Outcomes, Not a Passive Employee

Critical areas planners don’t simply “review paperwork.” They decide:

Whether wetlands exist
Whether buffers applys
Whether mitigation is required
Whether a property can be built on at all

Those decisions routinely shift property values by hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is not comparable to an ordinary county desk job. A critical areas planner’s determination can make land:

marketable or unmarketable
financeable or unfinanceable
buildable or functionally dead

They can also get you to PAY THEM to take your property as if it's worth less than ZERO, but turn around and use it to mitigate another property they REGULATE for over $400,000 an acre!

The investigation repeatedly treated Mahaffie as if he were powerless — which is incompatible with the role he held and the decisions he made.

The Witnesses Interviewed (and Not Interviewed)

What jumps out to me when you look at this list of "witnesses interviewed" is not just who the "investigator" interviewed, but more importantly, who she DIDN'T interview:

First report witness list...

Supplemental Report Witness List

So 7 planners from the department, including TWO SUPERVISORS and the DIRECTOR. Garrett Smith and Matt Mahaffie were interviewed TWICE (Mahaffie has a UNION REP LAWYER).
NEVER INTERVIEWED LARA KRATZER, the LIVE-IN GIRLFRIEND WHOSE NAME WAS USED TO BUY 8358 BLAINE RD!!!!

The Planner they HID from Interviewing

7 Planning Department Employees were interviewed, yet one of the most consequential omissions concerns Tom Brissenden, the County employee who approved critical areas determinations for the Blaine Road properties...in a shockingly fast 21 days!

The investigator did not interview Brissenden.

Worse, the investigation referred to him as a “former Natural Resources Planner,” creating the impression he was no longer a County employee and therefore outside ordinary internal accountability.

That impression is false.

Brissenden remained a Whatcom County employee and was reassigned from Planning & Development Services to Public Works in March 2022, where he continued working for the County as an engineer.

He was not a “former” County employee. He was a current County employee reassigned internally.

That matters because Brissenden is the person who could answer the most central questions about the Blaine Road approvals — including the overlap between his County duties and his employment with Mahaffie’s private company.

Why hide the guy?

No Victim Interviews BY DESIGN

The investigation did not interview the people who could speak to:

what they were told
what they believed about buildability
whether they understood Mahaffie’s role or it was DISCLOSED
why they accepted specific prices and terms
and whether regulatory obstruction influenced their decisions

The investigation did not interview:

John or Janice Dierdorff (or meaningfully obtain full victim testimony from those directly harmed)
Miguelina Beckwith, the Blaine Road seller
the real estate agents involved in the dual-agency transactions (see below)

Here is something I found both disturbing and hilarious. In this footnote of the investigation letter:

Gee...if only there were a way that the ethically compromised and dishonest investigator could have contacted the victim?

Instead of truth, the investigation relied heavily on internal County interviews and accepted self-serving explanations without testing them against the testimony of adverse witnesses or transaction records.

The ONLY Documents Used

Common sense says that if you are trying to investigate whether a planner used their REGULATORY POSITION and INFLUENCE to financially benefit themself, you would look at THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS like the Purchase & Sale Contract and the SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS for the transactions.

Not when there are ethically compromised attorneys involved. Nope.

They looked at the COUNTY PERMITTING RECORDS (which you will find did not contain the KEY DOCUMENTS), assessor records, and the initial complaint email from James Grifo.

No wonder the council kicked this piece of shit back for more investigating.

The second report included the same documents but focused on the NOAR from the new owners of 4470 Castlerock which is just there to throw that planner under the bus to protect the corrupt planner Matt Mahaffie.

You can look back at our earlier articles outlining the transactions here and here

In summary, there were NO FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS reviewed, they didn't interview the VICTIMS, nor did they interview the DUAL AGENT REAL ESTATE AGENTS who represented both Mahaffie and the sellers.

Hiding in Plain Sight: Shell Companies, Proxies, and Concealment

The investigation accepted, largely without scrutiny, the idea that Mahaffie’s real estate transactions were ordinary “arms-length” dealings.

So he never "met" Ms. Beckwith, but he did control the valuation and process through the DUAL AGENCY with the LISTING AGENT for Beckwith. Yet this is how the report read:

Working through an agent huh?

The Dual Agency Problem

In Washington State, a real estate agent can represent both buyer and seller, this is called dual agency. When this happens, the agent owes duties to both parties and cannot favor one party over the other.

But look at this deal with Beckwith. Every single term favors the buyers.

Someone structured the transactions. In the cast of the Blaine Rd properties, someone convinced Beckwith to:

Accept half of the assessed value
Pay all back taxes with no credit
Provide $50,000 seller financing
Accept the terms that left her underwater at closing

Who negotiated these terms? Who suggested splitting the purchase between Kratzer and Dead Goat? Who proposed the three-year note?

Who convinced Ms Beckwith TO GIVE AWAY 8366 Blaine Rd?...hell she had to PAY $2500+ to sell the property to Mahaffie after she paid the back taxes!

As a dual agent, representing both Mahaffie/Kratzer AND Beckwith, that agent collected ~$4,800 in commission while delivering zero value to the seller and everything to the buyers.

That's not dual agency. That's a setup.

This is where Mahaffie lied (once again) about what happened. The records show that the SELLER paid the taxes from her proceeds, not the buyer (Mahaffie). So he DID NOT PAY THE BACK TAXES, but lied about it to not make the deal look as ONE SIDED AS IT WAS!

Back to the hiding of who he was and disclosure...

The record shows the opposite pattern of disclosure. Mahaffie used:

Shell entities (including Dead Goat Properties LLC)
Proxies (his girlfriend and his mother) to apply for permits
Transaction structures that obscured who controlled the deal (Lara Kratzer was/is Mahaffie's live-in girlfriend. She shares the same home address as Mahaffie.
And a consistent failure to treat his role as a wetlands regulator as a material fact in transactions involving wetlands-related marketability

At the Blaine Road properties, permits and applications were filed in family members’ names, while Mahaffie’s involvement appears repeatedly in transaction-related activities and downstream benefits.

This was not “distance.”It was camouflage.

Suborning Perjury and Publishing Known False Statements and Facts

Conflicting Statements by Mahaffie and Goldschmidt

So in the first investigative report Mahaffie told Haggard that he had no idea about the wetlands finding in the NOAR that Nathan Goldschmidt did.

Then he said that Goldschmidt was WRONG and that the permit from 2002 had EXPIRED. He said that Goldschmidt "may not have been receiving enough supervision, due to the frequent turnover in the department leadership."

In the Supplemental Report, Goldschmidt told Haggard that Mahaffie WAS AWARE of his finding, but was "in passing":

Yet, Haggard just took Mahaffie's word that he was right and Goldschmidt was wrong. Or maybe the two other supervisors and the Director who failed at supervising Goldschmidt were to blame? Either way, these SUPERVISORS AND THE DIRECTOR knew what Mahaffie told the Haggard.

And Haggard let the two conflicting statements stand. This is the case where you can't be "kinda pregnant"; either you are, or you aren't. Either Goldschmidt was lying, or Mahaffie was. But Haggard just left Goldschmidt under the bus looking like he didn't know the rules.

Except it was EVERYONE BUT GOLDSCHMIDT, including the SUPERVISORS and the DIRECTOR, who were lying.

The Magic April 22, 2022 Memo Was Material Evidence, Was Ignored, and Was Used to Sell 4470 Castlerock When it Was Listed by Mahaffie

July 2017, Mahaffie says that 4470 Castlerock was "totally encumbered by wetlands buffers". Was needing mitigation plans, and special circumstances in order to build.
For THREE YEARS the Dierdorff's struggled to get their property built. In the end their builder bailed on them, Ms Dierdorff had passed, and Mr Dierdorff's failing health caused their dream of building their home gone.
October 2020, their son Bill, contacted Mahaffie to try and figure a way to sell the property. It was that conversation that Mahaffie convinced Bill that the property was unbuildable without mitigation, special use exceptions, additional expenses, and TIME.
They sold their property, assessed at $150,000 for $80,000 to Matt Mahaffie, the corrupt Whatcom County Natural Resources Planner.

On April 7, 2022 (barely 18 months later) Mahaffie listed the property for sale at $229,000. No disclosure of wetland issues, no wetlands work done. Just as he bought it from the Dierdorffs.

Here is the listing transaction activity:

On April 12, 2022, the property went pending feasibility.

On April 22, 2022, the property went back active after the buyer backed out.

On the same day the property went back on the market, an unsigned memorandum was issued on the Planning Director’s letterhead regarding The Greens at Loomis Trail.

That memo stated that the subdivision’s wetlands mitigation was addressed as part of the plat approval process and that further critical areas review was not required for lots within the plat.

Exactly as Nathan Goldschmidt had determined and was told HE was wrong, but Mahaffie was RIGHT.

Two SUPERVISORS and the DIRECTOR of the Corrupt Whatcom County Planning Department sall stood by and KNEW THIS MEMO WAS THERE AND LET MAHAFFIE LOOK RIGHT AND GOLDSCHMIDT INCOMPETENT.

Just to protect themselves and to screw over the victim.

What The Means for the 4470 Castlerock Dr

This means that Mahaffie KNEW that the wetlands had been mitigated by the plat in 2002

Mahaffie LIED to the Dierdorff's and the investigator that the wetlands WEREN'T MITIGATED by the plat in 2002.

He didn't need to "contact the new buyer of 4470 Castlerock about the property" because he either wrote that memo, or someone inside the planning department wrote it for him. Either way he MANIPULATED the planning process to benefit himself...clear as day.

Haggard never bothered to investigate anything that would contradict the predetermined outcome the corrupt Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office needed.

The memo was dated 4/22/2022 over TWO YEARS before the investigation. The memo was there, we found it within a week of asking for it.

Mahaffie booked a $150K profit from lying to the Dierdorff's about the buildability of their lot to enrich himself, and the corrupt Whatcom County Planning Department with the help of the corrupt Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office helped him cover it up.

SANTA IS REAL

After reading the "investigation and supplemental reports," I'm convinced that if Matt Mahaffie said "SANTA IS REAL", Kathleen Haggard would write it in as TRUTH without question.

What This Means for the Blaine Rd Properties

The “Arms-Length” Claim Was Never Tested

The investigation by Haggard accepted the characterization of the Blaine Road transactions as “arms length” without establishing the HOW or WHY they would be considered "arms length"!

She didn't determine whether the seller or her listing agent was informed that the buyer was a County wetlands regulator whose determinations directly affect property value.

She did not interview the seller, the agent, or any other party, and did not review any disclosure documents. As a result, it never determined whether material information about the buyer’s role, authority, or regulatory influence was disclosed to the parties whose interests were being represented.

The investigation did not review:

purchase and sale agreements
settlement statements
seller disclosures
listing agreements
dual agency disclosures
escrow documents
agent communications
financing terms
verified tax payment records

An investigation into profit from purchase and sale transactions that reviews no transaction documents cannot credibly assess whether transactions were arm's length, fair, or influenced by regulatory leverage.

The Conflict the Investigation Avoided

A core issue on the Blaine Road properties is this:

A County employee issued critical areas determinations on properties controlled by the person who also operated a private wetlands business — and Brissenden was simultaneously associated with that private operation.

If the investigation were serious, it would have:

interviewed Brissenden
examined independence and conflict standards
assessed whether approvals were insulated from private influence
determined when the private employment relationship began and how it overlapped with County decisions
examined whether internal safeguards failed — and who allowed them to fail

Instead, the investigation avoided the only witness who could answer the key questions.

The Family-Proxy Fiction

The investigation treated family-linked transactions as if they were independent “family dealings” beyond meaningful influence.

But family proxy structures are not independent when:

the same person controls the overall strategy
benefits financially
and holds superior regulatory knowledge and influence over outcomes

Treating these as independent actors is a way of avoiding the underlying reality: control can be exercised through proxies while accountability is dodged through formalities.

The Transaction That Makes No Sense — And Was Not Explored

The investigation glossed over the reality that a seller effectively gave away a substantial parcel, 7.5 acres, while also being forced to address tax issues tied to classification.

Who really represented this seller? The seller wasn't even looking to sell this particular lot, the other lot was for sale, but somehow she agrees to GIVE AWAY her lot? What benefit did she get from that?

Especially since it was ASSESSED for over $100K!

A credible investigation would have asked:

Why would a seller agree to terms that leave them with little or no cash at closing?
What were they told about the property’s value and buildability?
Did they understand they were dealing with a wetlands regulator?
Did dual agency and information asymmetry shape the outcome?

Those questions cannot be answered without interviewing the seller and reviewing the transaction documents.

The investigation did neither.

What This Investigation Was Designed to Do

This investigation was not designed to determine whether Mahaffie exploited regulatory power for private gain.

It was designed to:

minimize his power by treating him like a routine employee
avoid adverse witnesses
avoid transaction documents
avoid the most material official memo in the timeline
and produce a procedural “clearance” that protects the County from embarrassment and liability

That is why it reads less like oversight and more like institutional defense.

Why This Matters

If regulators who control land value can:

operate through shell entities and proxies
engage in transactions without meaningful scrutiny of disclosure and power imbalance
benefit from regulatory discretion that affects marketability
and rely on investigations that exclude victims and documentary evidence

…then land-use regulation becomes a tool for private enrichment, not public protection.

Just look at 8366 Blaine Rd. GIVEN AWAY to Mahaffie, but in his hands he's trying to sell mitigation credits on a neighboring developmet for $400,000 an acre!

And when the institution uses an “investigation” to protect itself rather than examine the truth, the corruption is no longer individual.

It is not only grotesquly wrong, it's totally okay to do according to the corrupt Director of the corrupt Planning Department. Look for our story on the threats that Mark Personius makes when someone dares to call out the TRUTH, that he and his department is corrupt through and through.

Click here to go back to the main page