Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

_ _ Case 1 :04-cv-00419-JJF Document 32 Filed 06/23/2005 Page 1 of 3
June 22, 2005
¤¤¤¤= Judas Fam »22 - . ` ~
I ii udgeygue L Ro inson _, 2 ’ 1‘ i ` 2`2 ‘ _
United States District Court iQ m y A _ M il
For The District Of Delaware Y ·
Boggs Building i "° I _
I8;44 l\lorth King Street ,
eckbex IS t »., ·
tlmington, DE l9S0l -» y , _ A_ . . s. _ I
( 302) 573-6 170 sr
Civil Actions Numbers: 04—04l9(JJF) St.
04-0703(JJF)
Attention: Judge Farnan &
The Senior Authorizing Judge Of The
This message is being sent to your attention not on behalf of myself, but on behalf of the Emerald Ridge Service Corporation,
in an attempt to protect the stockholders rights, where cases are pending before this court.
As it stands since the courts have not ruled upon the issues within it the parties who illegally took over the Corporation have
taken it upon themselves to call another illegal meeting, with Edward Kafader coming before the Corporation once again,
improperly informing them. It is my contention and other members ofthe corporation that they believe they can get away
with these acts because the courts have not protected them this far, with either an injunction until after court proceedings or
some other type of protection. Mr. Donald Gouge has now joined in on the deceit brought against the Corporation informing
them that the lawsuits are against them, not on behalf of them, and leading them to believe that Edward Kafader is doing
what is best for them, while clearly outlining that he is State Farm’s attorney. These parties are illegally accepting funds
from the illegal board without the Corporation knowing that their actions are not authorized. One of the courts should clearly
make a decision on the running of the Corporation and by whom, prior to the Corporation going into complete disarray. The
lawyers are continually causing deeisiveness amongst the corporate members in an attempt to continue being paid by persons
not authorized to pay them.
Now on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 these parties are going before the Corporation in an attempt to strip them of all of their
voting rights, with Edward Kafader advising them. This is not fair to the Corporation, or within the boundaries ofthe law.
Listed are some ofthe changes these unauthorized persons are trying to convince the Corporation is in their best interest They
are changing the ARC, giving the Board complete autonomy over the ARC. They are trying to convince the members to
change the ARC guidelines requiring that the ARC shall consist of 3 or 5 members and only persons solicited and
appointed by the Board, immediately after the Annual meeting. It further states that a single member ofthe board will be
appointed by the President to serve on the ARC and responsible for reporting back to the board. They are further stating that
members appointed by them may serve unlimited terms. Now with them having sent out election ballots asking persons to
choose a candidate and fill in their name if they want to be considered would not be a valid election, because the write in
candidate would not have been part ofthe initial election. The ballots would come back in with votes and the individual
placing their name on the ballot, which would not be considered in the election. These people are changing all kind of laws.
On the Bylaws they have a section stating: "Presidcttt Pro Tern, which states: In the absence or disability oi the Presidcttt
rind thc Vice President the Board may appoint from their own nttntbcr ct President pro term. "
They are now stating to incorporate to the Bylaws "A tnctiority oif the metnbers exercising their votes either in person or by
prog shall constittrte o gtroritnt". Which gives them the right to run the corporation as they please. (This means that if there
are three persons at the meetings and only consisting of them that they can make all votes.
They are stating that, "tlte Board 0[ Directors stroll deterntine and recotttntettrl the rtntottttt o[ the onnttol rtssesstncttt against
each lot {or approval by tnaiorigy vote o{ tnerrtbers voting either by person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting per the
Maintcttance Declaration:. " (In other words if 5 people show up and there is a vote they can execute on the vote. You
guys are in trouble.)

Case 1 :04-cv-00419-JJF Document 32 Filed 06/23/2005 Page 2 of 3
They are now also adding under assessments that they may invoke a special assessment against the corporation members for
..... lawful purposes .... and taking out that they need 2/3 of a vote. (They are changing that to a majority vote ofthe
members voting in person or proxy.) This would allow them to illegally use corporation's monies as they are now doing and
charge the Corporation members for such.
Because of the actions of these persons actions so far house sales in the community are at the highest level ever, after
speaking with people regarding why they are moving, results mainly around how out of control these persons have gotten.
Some persons who have come to look @ homes in the community cancelled appointments stating that the community is
unappealing. This is mainly because we don't have a legal person enforcing the Deed Restrictions and the maintenance of
the community.
If these persons try carrying out such changes prior to a trial (which there will be one), whether in State Court or the US
Courts I will prosecute them for such on behalfofthe Corporation, because even if I’m not here this is not right. This is
wrong and there needs to be someone overseeing this Corporation so that it is not continued to be run by members not
stockholders, such as Edward Kafader and Donald Gouge for personal gain. As I stated I am quite versed in the law
considering that my ex-mother-in-laws husband is Clifford Brown, a Senior US District Court Judge in Pennsylvania, my ex-
brother-in—law sits on the Court Of Common Pleas for Pennsylvania, my ex-father-in-law is a retired Senator/Attorney and
my other brother-in—law who graduated from Yale law school is in private practice in New York. So based on my experience
with these persons and advice sought I know this is not right and I am only hoping that this court will save the corporation
and @ least issue an Order that these parties cannot even try to change legal documents until a court rules on their validity.
The Delaware Supreme Court has already ruled and confirmed that at all times relevant through these proceedings I (myself)
was a validly elected Director, and none of the other persons have been confirmed or given a letter to the Corporation that
they will pay back all the legal fees paid out on their behalf, or at their request, if determined they were never Directors to be
performing the tasks they are so doing, as the Bylaws require.
I was informed that I should send the letter to the courts, however I will have an attorney who may either be an actingjudge
or just an attorney present at this Wednesday meeting to validate the deceit of these individuals and how far they will go and
perhaps you can have someone there to ensure that the Corporations interests are protected if you do not issue an injunction.
Hopefully, the courts will at least protect the Corporation and not allow this to continue. This is making the Corporation look
bad, while Donald Gouge and Edward Kafader does not have to live here and don’t care about the members of the
Corporation, as long as they are being paid illegally. Not everyone is financially able to move, Since these persons are not
properly informing the Corporation why come before the Corporation'? State Farm is the only benefactor in these
proceedings they are in a win, win situation as pointed out by my counsel in the US Courts. Should the US Court OfAppeals
rule on the side of law these persons will be determined not to be indemnified and not validly elected board members, at
which time they will have to pay State Farm back and the Corporation as outlined in those proceedings. However, with their
being in control of the books what are the chances this will happen? They are already trying to get the Corporation members
to allow them to assess COSIS against them for legal proceedings as outlined in the attached. Kafader, is only protecting State
Farm’s interest, rightfully so. and Don Gouge is protecting his friend instead ofthe Corporation. Whether, or not I`m still a
homeowner or now, I will not allow this type of deceit to bc brought against innocent individuals, although they do not know
the truth.
Please treat this as a Motion on behalf of the Corporation, a Corporation in which I am leaving and still deserve the
protection of the courts and their rights, since they don`t know them. Another pleading if they try invoking these changes
will only hurt the Corporation, Mr. Kafader and Mr. Gouge, as well as State Farm will prosper at innocent persons expenses.
incererly, J. ,
C; : up . . 9
Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum
l I5 Emerald Ridge Drive
Bear, DE l9'/01
cc: Ferry, Joseph & Pearce
Jon Parshall
Stephen Casarino

asc 1:04-cv-00419- ocument 32 1 e 06 23 2005 age 3 0 3
c JJF D FI d / / P r
Q
i
il?
ifi? 3
_. . ;— C60 *1 C, +
;=> 8 .<: ¤ C 5 K
· (3 1 F.
*··i»-** LU) gf 2,
¤,s.;> ji (A E
3 O` E ég § ‘
il"? { gl K, N /:5
~ 5 »» *¤ Q5 FO "’ 22 3 A
3 l/‘ · XO § *** -2 »
@@9}% L, "` mop ;
(A ’+- ai-ln x.
aww Ay C Q? {3 S;
w
fh W'! 2 O .
{ii? gr M 3 ~
.... T 0 3* ¤=~>
gr.: ‘ I-·
M ‘ . H & 9/ >-
`'` ` . F 0-2-

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 32

Filed 06/23/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 32

Filed 06/23/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00419-JJF

Document 32

Filed 06/23/2005

Page 3 of 3