Beth Klein
Purvis, Gray & Gordon, LLC
1050 Walnut Street Suite 501
Boulder, CO 80302

Dear Ms Klein,

This letter is in response to your representational letter mistakenly sent to Anthony Johnson, an attorney who is representing us in our lawsuit against NorthStar Companies International, LLC, of Florissant, Colorado. As you are aware, NorthStar Companies International does a lot of business with your client, Summit Crest Homes. As your client is also aware, Northstar Companies International has been defrauding customers for several years. Your client is also aware that NorthStar has been almost exclusively selling nothing but homes manufactured by Summit Crest since 1998.

Your letter is full of inaccuracies, deliberate misrepresentations, obvious omissions, distortions, and outrageous demands. Do they teach this sort of ineptness in law school? As you did a number of times in your letter, we will take the liberty of making some assumptions. Unlike you, we will base ours on the facts (as presented by you). Let us begin. Whoever advised you that Anthony Johnson was representing us "in matters relating to a Summit Crest home", we assume, must have been NorthStar. You have yet to learn that you cannot trust anything NorthStar, and owners Doug Robbins and Barbara Robbins, tell you. NorthStar knows, as does their attorney of record, M James Zendejas, that we presently represent ourselves concerning the web site. They have known this for almost two months now. They also know, had you asked, that there is no likelihood of Anthony Johnson representing us concerning the web site as it would create a conflict of interest for him. In fact, the office of M James Zendejas discussed this matter with Anthony Johnson's office on September 11th. We would have thought that a simple courtesy telephone call between members of the legal profession, from you to him, would have preceded a letter of this nature. An interest in the facts does not seem to be one of your strong points. Have you actually studied our web site or are you relying upon the wit and wisdom of others with which to form your opinions? We believe the latter.

Whether or not Summit Crest has dealt with us in accordance with it's legal obligations is open to speculation. In your letter you twice refer to the legal obligations of Summit Crest. Summit Crest is very reluctant to discuss any of it's legal obligations. They seem to make a point of ignoring those questions. We're willing to bet that Summit Crest hurries repairmen to the various problem sites to avoid it's real legal obligations. Perhaps the motto of Summit Crest should be: Fix it fast and maybe they won't think it's our fault. As we have found with NorthStar, Grand West Financial, and Rocky Mountain Construction Lending, clients are often not as forthcoming with pertinent information as their attorneys would like. This leaves the attorney in the uncomfortable position of getting the truth from the other side. As you are about to get from us.

We have attached several letters you should find interesting. Our first letter to Summit Crest was dated January 11, 2001, not January 17, 2001 as you have been led to believe. We sent it Dee Coleman, the name we were given when we called Summit Crest to inquire who was the best person to contact with complaints. This letter was mailed after telephone calls that did not satisfactorily resolve any issues. A copy of Dee Coleman's response, dated January 16th, is also attached. It was the blow-off nature of his response that prompted the letters sent on January 17th. Dee Coleman speaks of Doug and Barb Robbins in glowing terms and basically blows us off. We do not believe he even opened the file on NorthStar, preferring to call Barbara Robbins for a friendly chat. What NorthStar did not tell him, was that on January 11th, NorthStar filed a lien against us because of the adversarial relationship that was developing. His conversation with them took place after the lien was filed. NorthStar knew the issues were not going to be resolved outside of court. Dee Coleman's attitude prompted the letter dated January 17th that was sent to Dee Coleman and John Kowalczyk. In the letter dated January 17th, we reference the legal actions and our displeasure with the manner in which we were being treated by Summit Crest in the affair. After the second letter, dated January 17th, we got a response from Summit Crest about service and obligations. Repairmen representing Summit Crest did appear and did work. And, the work they did was satisfactory as far as we could see. We never said every repair issue was addressed; only those that we knew of at that time. And, we never said that every repair was made that we requested. Dee Coleman's response of January 16th did not reflect the utmost courtesy in that he ignored our complaints. The manner and tone of his letter implied we were lying and it was insulting. It is very obvious that he relied solely upon the word of his dealer, not taking anything we had to say into consideration, and also ignoring the history of complaints concerning NorthStar.

As for the repair work, when the repairmen representing Summit Crest had departed, the following items listed in the January 17th letter and the January 21st letter were still not corrected: The front door still not weather-proofed adequately; living room ceiling fan rough-in not ordered by us is still there; television set and VCR still have not been delivered; drawer in the kitchen still sticks: sliding glass door still leaks wind, dirt, and snow; counter tops are not the ones we ordered; back door leaks dirt, wind, and snow; paints splatters on valances and windows were still there. We still have not been told what areas are the responsibility of Summit Crest and what areas are the responsibility of NorthStar. As for the repairman scheduled to work on the house October 25, 2001, we heard of this first from the repairman without any idea from Summit Crest that this was to happen. Much like the first time. Summit Crest's communication skills leave a lot to be desired.

We also sent a letter to Summit Crest dated January 21, 2001 that either you chose to ignore or about which your client failed to inform you. That letter again addressed the problems with NorthStar and made several specific requests. In this letter we complained about the way in which Summit Crest was handling our complaints. Or, to be more specific, not handling our complaints. Read the letter. Did we sound like the happy campers you portray us as?

We subsequently learned of more problems with the house. Most of these were things that we learned about accidentally. Such as the dryer vent. The dryer was vented under the house. A violation of installation rules issued by Summit Crest. Rules we found out about accidentally. Rules we should have received a long time ago. But, as we have stated on many occasions, NorthStar does not care about the rules. And, as Summit Crest has known for a long time, NorthStar frequently circumvents the rules and Summit Crest frequently has to come along afterwards and clean up the mess. The records will show that Summit Crest has received a large number of complaints about NorthStar over the last three years. The records will also show that Summit Crest has not taken any definitive actions to protect it's name and reputation from NorthStar's activities. This is an easy assumption since NorthStar, being sued by about ten different parties, is still selling homes manufactured by Summit Crest. The lack of definitive action by Summit Crest can only lead one to assume they don't care about the public, only their sales.

As for your statement that your client will conduct itself with professionalism and that this process has already begun, again is a distortion of the facts. The letter you mention, dated September 14th, was ignored by Summit Crest. It wasn't until Karen began calling John Kowalczyk in the beginning of October that anything began to happen. Your client professionally ignored the letter of complaint. Perhaps Allen Council, like Dee Coleman, was not the person to whom the letter should have been addressed. Those two, like Tony Watson, seem to be actively ignoring Summit Crest buyers while John Kowalczyk seems to be genuinely concerned about them.

Unwarranted threats? We were told, and have every reason to believe, that in order to get any response out of Summit Crest we would have to threaten them. This came third party from a legal representative of Summit Crest. Indeed, there are implied threats included in the letter dated January 17th and the letter dated September 14th. Guess what? The threats, along with persistence, got us repairs when the builder and representative of Summit Crest, NorthStar, refuses to do them. Seems the quoted legal source was somewhat correct. As far as complimenting Summit Crest on the telephone, that is what's called sucking up. Being nice so the work will get done. You're familiar with that concept. As far as being appreciative of the work of Summit Crest, it was on recommendation from another Summit Crest buyer that we change the logo on the web site from Summit Crest to Summit Crap. That suggestion was supported by others who have purchased homes from Summit Crest. Their homes are not the high quality that they are represented as. More details about these problems will be posted on the web site.

And the phony shock schtick won't stand up. Your client was very surprised to view "defamatory statements" on the web site? Your client knew in February that the web site said unflattering things about Summit Crest. The complaint list that the repairmen had with them was printed directly off of the web site. They said they had received the complaint list from Summit Crest. We have been saying from the beginning that Summit Crest is acting like an enabler. For your client to have suddenly just "discovered" these comments is untruthful on the part of your client. Indeed, the existence of the web site was mentioned in bold type in the letter dated January 17th and repeated in bold type in the letter dated January 21st.

There are no defamatory statements about Summit Crest on our web site, www.NorthStar-Sucks.com. Those statements are accurate and, as far as we can determine, the truth. The truth is often considered defamatory by those who don't agree with it. The web site front page states that Summit Crest "appears to actively support NorthStar in their criminal activities thru Summit Crest's indifference and inaction". The front page also states that Summit Crest "continues to do business with NorthStar Builders despite the numerous complaints and law suits and what looks like a shaky past with NorthStar." What you laughingly refer to as defamatory statements are in fact statements based upon personal experience of ourselves and the many Summit Crest home buyers to whom we have spoken. What you laughingly refer to as defamatory statements are in fact statements that are considered "protected speech" under the First Amendment.

Federal courts have long recognized that legitimate criticism of a manufacturer's product, business practices, and management personnel, are wholly protected under the First Amendment. We assume you didn't sleep thru Constitutional Law like M James Zendejas seems to have done. Any first year law student could research this for you and tell you that the likelihood of success for your client is nil. If your client wishes to find this out by going to court, they will find that Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Monsanto, Bally's, to name just a few, have all been there before them and have all failed in their attempts to close web sites they considered to be defamatory. And those web sites were far more critical and derogatory than ours. Your client does not want us rooting thru their books, contacting home buyers, questioning sales policies and procedures, making public their corporate pricing and kickbacks procedures. And this is exactly what will happen should your client decide to pursue this matter in court. Look at the questions we ask on our web site. Your client doesn't really want to answer them. Nor does your client want the adverse publicity that comes with attacking legitimate critics. The Colorado newspapers will eat it up. If your client had not disregarded the complaints, it is likely that your client would not be in this position. Considering that the complaints began in 1998 while NorthStar was still under the wing of Blue Rose, by 2000 NorthStar should not have been still selling homes manufactured by Summit Crest. A company that was serious about protecting their name, the reputation of their product, and their legal obligations, would have thoroughly investigated the incident between Blue Rose and NorthStar and then denied NorthStar the permission to represent Summit Crest by becoming a dealer. But Summit Crest was only interested in sales, sales, sales, and the public be damned.

You also seem to take issue with what you refer to as perverse ad hominem attacks on Barbara Robbins and Douglas Robbins. Perverse? To whom? And, upon what do you make the judgement that these attacks are perverse? Information that you have gleaned from NorthStar? Barbara Robbins is a pathological liar. Her lies are so distorted that we believe she has lost her grasp of reality. Look at her letters posted on the web site. The underlying theme is that everyone else is lying and that she, and only she, is telling the truth. And, she is never at fault. It's always someone else. She is perfect. Are you still expecting them to tell you the truth? You seem to have an inordinate interest in what was said about NorthStar. To us, that is a reflection of the very close, certainly improper, and possibly illegal, relationship that exists between NorthStar and your clients, Summit Crest. As for the "attacks" you mention, they are not slanderous per se if they are true and we have reason to believe there is a fair amount of truth in these statements. We can, and will, validate these statements when and if requested. And, these are not personal attacks that avoid the issues. These are attacks upon the owners and operators of a business involved lying, cheating, and stealing. These "attacks" supplement the allegations of how they conduct their business and how they circumvent the rules.

You also make reference to these "attacks" as to their being "many of which are sexually oriented". You must have a very vivid imagination. Many? What is your definition of many? Two? Three? Four out of hundreds of statements? That's many? Who are you trying to kid? Many has the connotation of thirty to forty percent. Not one or two percent! Whom are you really defending here? Why do you go to such lengths to distort the facts? What perverse ad hominem attacks (your words) are directed at your client? None? Then what possibly was the purpose of bringing up these so-called perverse ad hominem attacks if none related to your client? And, what you refer to as perverse ad hominem attacks, have a relevance in the overall wealth of information provided on the web site about the illegal and corrupt activities of NorthStar and their owners. If you had taken the time to read what is provided on the web site you would see that. We maintain that the information posted on the web site is accurate, i.e., truthful to the best of our knowledge and ability to confirm. And, should you ever really take the time to look at the information posted there, you will see that we have determined that there are at least some 50 persons (and/or couples) who have purchased homes from NorthStar in the last three years. Of these 50, we have been able to contact about half. We have about 20 stories, most of which are on the web site. Not one, nada, zilch, zero, none have anything good to say about NorthStar. What does that tell you? A few have said good things about Summit Crest. Most who have a comment about Summit Crest do not have anything positive to say except that Summit Crest did come out and fix some of the problems left by NorthStar. Some stories are not posted on the web site because of pending litigation. Other stories are not posted because of threats made by NorthStar to the persons involved. We can substantiate this, and everything else we have on the web site, in or out of court.

Your statement about our being "sued in Park County by others who have been attacked on this web site" makes it appear that there is a long list of attackees who are lining up to sue us. Wrong, again, Sherlock. Really, you should be getting your information from some other source than NorthStar. Or, you should be confirming your information before transmitting it. It makes you look real simple. The fact is that NorthStar filed suit against us after we sued them for breach of contract and other wrongdoings. As we said in our response, which is posted on the web site along with their complaint, their suit is nothing more than harassment and will fail upon the merits as well as the First Amendment. Their suit was filed on August 3, 2001. A full three months later, the lawyer for NorthStar, M James Zendejas, has not taken any timely steps to pursue this lawsuit. Nor do we expect any. NorthStar does not want to face us, and the many unsatisfied NorthStar customers, in court. NorthStar has a history of avoiding the court room. In 1998, Jim Lottig, of Victor, Colorado, sued NorthStar for breach of contract. NorthStar settled out of court. In 1999, NorthStar filed a lien against Joe DeBaun of Florissant. Just before the trial date, they withdrew the lien. Also in 1999, NorthStar filed a lien against the Woods' of Hartsel. Four days before the court hearing, NorthStar again withdrew the lien rather that try and defend their actions in court. NorthStar has even gone as far as to fake a heart attack to avoid mediation. We will win this case.

We have included a copy of the Memorandum in Opposition that we filed in response to the complaint filed against us and the web site. You might find it enlightening. You will note that at no time is your client mentioned in the memorandum. You might also note that, unlike the other companies mentioned on the web site, Grand west Financial and Rocky Mountain Construction Lending, at no time have we, or anyone else, ever accused your client of illegal activities. More than anything else, they seem to be guilty of incredibly bad judgement and poor business practices.

As far as our starting another web site, www.SummitCrestHomesSucks.com, we simply don't have the time. It certainly touched a nerve with your clients, didn't it? We would just continue adding statements about Summit Crest to our present web site. Statements from unsatisfied Summit Crest home buyers. Guess what? There's a lot more of them than your client is willing to admit. Your statement about our having threatened to harm your client is not true. We can't harm your client. Only your client can do that by continuing this alliance with NorthStar. We report the facts. We don't have to fabricate. We don't have to lie. And we don't fabricate or lie. The actions of your client are damning in and of themselves. They just don't like seeing their activities being criticized in this manner. Ours is not outrageous conduct; it is legitimate dissent and protected speech.

On the Principles Page about Summit Crest, there are a number of questions. Questions that have come up in discussions concerning the relationship between NorthStar and Summit Crest. If your client would like to answer these questions, we would be more than happy to put their responses on the web site. We won't hold our breath waiting.

Additionally, Summit Crest has totally ignored the problems surrounding the television sets, VCRs, and MSOs, to name a few. Many customers have complained about not receiving items they had purchased. Like us, Rui Haagen has not received her TV and VCR. And for your further edification Ms Klein, these TVs and VCRs are listed in the sales brochures printed and distributed by Summit Crest and are listed as being standard, i.e., coming with the house. Since the houses have been paid for, and NorthStar refuses to turn these items over, we feel that Summit Crest is aiding in theft of personal property. We informed Summit Crest in the January 17th letter that we had not received the TV and VCR and they have yet to take any action. Because they don't really care once it leaves their plant? Marianne Oswalt still does not have the linoleum in her dining room that she ordered. The Harts did not get items they ordered and one of their bedrooms is rendered useless as a bedroom because it's only eight feet wide. One customer just received their MSO, three years after settlement. Rui Haagen does not have her MSO. Nor do we. These types of complaints will not go away. These complaints are ignored by your client. These complaints are a result of your client supporting the illegal activities of NorthStar by continuing to allow NorthStar to sell Summit Crest Homes. This is not a stretch; this is a fact.

Concerning your outrageous demands:
        1. We will not remove your client's name, logo, or other references from the web site www.NorthStar-Sucks.com. They have earned their place.
        2. As previously stated, there are no defamatory statements about Summit Crest on our web site. We cannot cease that which we are not doing. Opinions are not defamatory.
        3. We will not write any letter of apology as we firmly believe that we have done nothing for which to apologize. In fact, based upon our communications with Summit Crest home buyers and Summit Crest management and representatives, we firmly believe Summit Crest should be the party required to issue an apology for allowing companies like NorthStar to continue to sell homes made by Summit Crest and thereby assisting NorthStar in defrauding unsuspecting home buyers. In fact, we expect you to write us a letter of apology for wasting our time with your badly-researched letter, ill-mannered tone, and sophomoric threats. You may have impressed your clients with your rhetoric but your Constitutional Law is very weak.

Should you decide to pursue this matter thru litigation, please be advised that we will consider your law firm a party in a frivolous law suit. While Colorado does not yet have a SLAPP statute, it does not mean that sanctions cannot be sought. An action by Summit Crest cannot win because of the First Amendment and the basic case lacks merit. You cannot stifle legitimate dissention. For you to advise your client otherwise makes your firm a party to a harassment lawsuit. Additionally, we're sure that Champion Homes would love to see it's name and reputation being broadcast thru the news media as a natural extension of this sort of litigation. We would refer to the CEO of Champion Homes by name except it's against the company policy of Champion Homes to disclose that information. They won't even give out the name of the CEO! Do they have any idea how stupid that makes them look? And the questions to be asked that your client really doesn't want to answer in public? Your letter makes it appear that the statements on the web site are harmful to your client. That is a decision for a jury. And you won't win. We suggest you advise your client accordingly.

Sincerely yours,

signatures

Karen Dudnikov
Michael Meadors
P.O. Box 87
Hartsel, CO 80449
719-539-8032

Enclosures:
Letter dated January 11, 2001 to Dee Coleman
Letter dated January 16, 2001 from Dee Coleman
Letter dated January 17, 2001 to John Kowalczyk, Tony Watson
Letter dated January 21, 2001 to John Kowalczyk
Letter dated February 23, 2001 to Tony Watson
Memorandum in Opposition