Rebuttal to the Poison Pen Letter

Re: Ms. Lee Pleads the Fifth - The Anonymous Poison Pen Letter - Lee and Maull Were Sued for Defamation As Individuals – The HOA Was NOT Sued

1. The Anonymous Poison Pen Letter you may have recently received is regrettably part of an on-going smear campaign. It contains a number of misrepresentations and defamatory insinuations. Since the Anonymous author refuses to identify herself/himself, it should be seen as a blatant attempt to blacken the reputations of three candidates in the upcoming election, including, but not limited to, Mr. McHenry and Mr. Hayen with impunity. Using the cloak of anonymity is an admission of the author’s lack of courage to be responsible for one’s own words and actions. These Minority Board Members are running for re-election.

2. Contrary to representations and rumors circulating at WF, the WF HOA has not been sued. Only Ms. Lee and Ms. Maull have been sued individually. The false implication of the Anonymous Poison Pen Letter was that the defamation litigation has caused WF’s insurance rates to increase. The increase was mostly based on WF’s prior claims history, which predated the litigation. WF’s prior claims history was what it was, and could not be changed.

3. Ms. Lee and Ms. Maull must be held accountable for their alleged defamation and should not be allowed to shift the blame to their victim. They have refused to apologize and retract their defamatory statements and in doing so have caused and prolonged the litigation. The fact that a Director knows that the HOA carries D&O insurance should not allow a Director to defame other WF Homeowners at will.

4. A Homeowner has alleged that he was both slandered (orally, by both Ms. Maull and Ms. Lee) and libeled (in writing, by Ms. Lee) in manner most foul. What happened to this particular Homeowner could have easily happened to you or to any other Homeowner. In addition, two former WF Owners, Defendants Patel and Dayal, have admitted liability and their insurance company (Auto Club) has paid $40,000 to counsel for the plaintiff (all going to pay costs and outstanding attorney fees).

5. Ms. Lee and Ms. Maull, the only two remaining Defendants, are accused of defamation per se -- for using a term so obscene and foul that it offends the basic norms of civil society. The blame for causing this litigation lies with Lee and Maull, and not the person they defamed. The victim simply sought an apology and retraction from Lee and Maull, but Lee and Maull have obstinately refused, which inevitably led to the filing of the lawsuit for defamation.

6. The credibility of Lee and Maull is the key to this litigation. Notably, Judge Patricia Nieto ruled on Lee’s and Maull’s motion to dismiss this lawsuit. After carefully weighing the evidence, Judge Nieto concluded in her ruling that Plaintiff’s evidence established that Maull and Lee recklessly defamed the Homeowner. (Ruling at p. 7).

7. The credibility of Lee and Maull will also be in question because of Lee’s destruction of evidence. Despite being served with a notice to preserve evidence when first served with the Complaint, during her deposition, Ms. Lee admitted that numerous relevant text messages had been deleted from her cell phone. Ms. Lee attempted to blame her children for the deletions from her phone. (Lee Dep.,page 84, Line 20 to page 85 line 19).

8. In the litigation, Ms. Lee has pled the Fifth Amendment Against Self Incrimination. Ms. Lee refused to disclose under oath on what basis she had asserted her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. (Lee Dep., page 41, Line 10 to Page 48 Line 9).

9. Lee and Maull have both represented to WF Homeowners that Ms. Lee was eligible to run for election to WF Board of Directors. The issue was whether or not Ms. Lee was then current on the payment of her monthly dues owed to the WF HOA. She was not current per Windsor Fountains’ records. Mr. Wright, an employee of Horizon Management (WF’s prior HOA management company), was placed under oath to tell the truth under the penalty of perjury. When Mr. Wright was shown WF monthly financial records, he had to admit that Ms. Lee had not been current for a period of three months. (See Wright Dep., page 174, line 8 to page 197 and line 8). Accordingly, Ms. Lee, pursuant to both California law and WF Rules, was ineligible to run for election and ineligible to serve on the WF Board. 9. Notwithstanding Mr. Wright’s admission (and the total lack of documentary evidence), Ms. Lee and Ms. Maull both have testified under oath, that Ms. Lee was eligible for election. Their deposition testimony was obviously totally contradicted by Mr. Wright and WF own monthly financial records.

10. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that Horizon later decided to terminate its contact with the WF HOA. Mr. Wright is no longer employed by Horizon.

11. If you have any questions about the citations above, both Lee and Maull have copies of the Ruling and their depositions which they can provide to you upon request. This brief commentary is based upon my review of the relevant facts, the Ruling and the deposition testimony, and accordingly, the opinions expressed herein are mine alone.

PLEASE DON’T BE FOOLED BY THE FALSE RUMORS BEING SPREAD

VOTE FOR CHANGE BEFORE THE DEADLINE PASSES!

David Hayen, Esq. Member, WF Board of Directors And Long Time WF Homeowner