DEFENDANT GEORGE R. SIMPSON’S RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 2nd AMENDED ANSWER

Defendant’s STATEMENT, contained in Answer dated May 4, 2004 and May 11, 2004 had statements 1 through 89. Defendant’s additional statements are provided starting with statement number 90.

  1. The Board of Directors of Sapphire Bay Condominiums West, the Plaintiff, have distributed a letter (dated May 14, 2004) to all unit owners of Sapphire Bay Condominiums West. This letter is full of lies and omissions. The only purpose of the letter could be to further defame me. The letter is attached as Defendant Exhibit 21.
  2. The first line of the letter starts: "As you may or may not be aware, SBCW has been experiencing a problem created by a new owner (me, George Simpson)". I am not aware of any problem I have created. I have only followed the rules and By-laws of the Condo Association. This statement is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  3. The letter contains a list of referenced dates and events. The second referenced date of the letter reads as follows. "August 2003 – Without the permission or knowledge of the Board of Directors of SBCW, the Simpson’s removed the bearing wall between the living room and the front porch, including the bracing at each end of the wall. This renders the building unsafe as the essential bracing has been removed." The Board lies when it says "Without the permission or knowledge of the Board of Directors of SBCW". I was off island during August, 2003, when a contractor, hired by me and recommended by Condo Manager Frank Barry, removed the wall, and made other modifications to the unit. Frank Barry was fully aware of the fact that the wall was being removed. Frank Barry witnessed the wall being removed. Frank Barry recently told other owners, that he had, in fact, known the wall was removed, since August, and did nothing about it. I was never told that this wall was load bearing until at the SBCW Board meeting of March 17, 2004. The complacency with the wall removal over a period of eight months by the Condo Manager hired by the SBCW Board, Frank Barry, certainly was approval in anyone’s eyes. This statement to the owners is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  4. The letter, Exhibit 21 paragraph 5 regarding "November 10, 2003". We did not "present our case" at the Board meeting. We had already gotten approval of the window change due to the passing of 30 days without word from the Board. It is not true that we were "told that they can’t do this by the Board President Steve Kershcner. Other board member comments are negative on the changes". The minutes of the Board meeting do not say that we were told we could not do anything. The minutes do not reflect negative comments of other Board members. The Board tabled the matter, and never again brought it up again for approval/denial. This statement in the letter to the owners is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  5. Plantiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues:
  6. "November 28, 2003 – Jack Donahue, a Board member, writes a letter to Mr. Simpson, stating that the Board has denied the request to alter the windows of C-4".

  7. The May 14, 2004 letter to the owners omits that the Jack Donahue letter of November 28, 2003 was unsigned, only having the typed words "The Board of Directors", and the letter contained the lie saying:
  8. "After reviewing the proposal in which you request permission to install windows in the front of your unit (C-4) that are not Jalousies; the Board of Directors has unanimously voted not to give consent for such an installation at this time."

  9. Jack Donahue admitted to me that he had lied about there having been a vote. I recorded his conversation with me. There had been no vote. The Plaintiff has, even now, been unable to provide evidence that there was ever a vote. This statement is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  10. Plantiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues:
  11. "Subsequent to the November 10, 2003 board meeting, Mr. Simpson begins to call and write letters to the Board of Directors and General Manager and publish on a website (SapphireBayCondos.com) comments calling various members of the Board and the General Manager liars, cheats, dishonest and other terms deemed slanderous and libelous by the Board’s attorney, Andrew L. Capdeville. Those comments have continued to the present time (May 2, 2004)".

  12. There is absolutely nothing in any of my letters or telephone conversations, or the information I supplied for publication on SapphireBayCondos.com which is untrue or could be deemed "slanderous or libelous" by anyone. This statement is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  13. Plantiff’s letter to owners dated May 14, 2004 continues:
  14. "February 16-20, 2004 – Steve Sokolow, a member of the Board of Directors and Frank Barry, General Manager discover that the bearing walls in the Simpson’s apartment have been removed."

  15. This statement is untrue, and the Plaintiff knows it. Frank Barry had known, since August 2003, that the wall had been removed. He witnessed the wall being removed, and said nothing about it. This statement is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  16. Plaintiff’s letter to owners dated May 14, 2004 continues:
  17. "March 11, 2004 – Udo Penther, a Registered Professional Engineer, provided a report to the Board of Directors stating that the removal of the bearing walls in the Simpson’s Apartment created an extremely unsafe condition."

  18. The Plaintiff letter to owners fails to mention that 40 or 50 similar load bearing walls in Sapphire Bay Condominiums West have been altered without any engineering opinion. The Plaintiff letter failed to mention that Mr. Penther’s report was his opinion, and was not supported by engineering calculations and drawings which are required for valid proof of a problem. This statement is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  19. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating:
  20. "At a Board of Directors meeting Mr. Simpson was officially given 30 days to correct the unsafe condition in his apartment."

  21. This statement is untrue. The By-laws require that notice of violations of the By-laws be given to an owner by certified letter. That has not been done. This statement is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  22. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating:
  23. "March 19, 2004 – Steve Kerschner, Board President, officially notified Mr. Simpson, by registered mail of the Board’s action directing Mr. Simpson to correct the unsafe condition in his apartment."

  24. If there was such a letter sent, we never got a letter. Neither is a letter from Mr. Kerschner dated March 19, 2004 referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint, when it was filed by Plaintiff. The By-laws require notice by Certified letter, not Registered letter. It should be noted that Steven Kerschner, for 8 years, has dishonestly functioned as a Director, because he has not had the proper credentials required by the By-laws to be a Director. This statement is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  25. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating:
  26. "March 31, 2004 – Since there had been no communication from Mr. Simpson concerning the bearing walls and he, during General Manager Frank Barry’s absence, replaced the windows contrary to the Board’s decision, the Board of Directors held an emergency meeting and authorized legal action to be commenced by Attorney Andrew Capdeville."

  27. There was no communication required of me, to the Board about the walls. Had someone called me, I would have told them that, in the interest of being extra careful, I intended to replace the wall structure, even though there was no proof of the "unsafe condition". Bill Dzio told me that he told manager Frank Barry, prior to March 31, 2004, that I intended to talk to Udo Penther (Professional Engineer who advised the Board), but he was out of town for a month. I did not replace the windows "during General Manager Frank Barry’s absence". Frank Barry came back from vacation the day I replaced the windows. I replaced the windows several days after they were delivered to my apartment from the window manufacturer. I had a complete right to replace the windows under the By-laws of the Condo Association. This statement is wrong, the Plaintiff knows it was wrong, and it is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  28. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating:
  29. "April 12, 2004 --- A lawsuit was filed to enforce compliance with respect (to) replacing the bearing walls in Simpson’s apartment and to remove the windows he installed, replacing the original windows."

  30. Plaintiff knows that the lawsuit was frivolous and without any foundation. This statement is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  31. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating:
  32. "April 20, 2004 – A civil action for damages, including punitive damages was filed against Mr. Simpson to force him to cease his conduct against the Board of Directors and the General Manager, as well as his statement on his web site which he has labeled ‘the official web site of SBCW’, which your Board believes damages our whole community."

  33. Plaintiff knows that the lawsuit was frivolous and without any foundation. This statement is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  34. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating:
  35. "April 22, 2004 – In Mr. Simpson’s response to the lawsuit to require him to return his apartment to a safe condition and to remove the windows and replace them with acceptable ones, he states that he hired Udo Penther, the Board’s expert, to provide him with a proposal to cure the deficiency and work has commenced. This may or may not be true. What is true, however, is that prior to this response, neither the Board nor the General Manager has had any notice of this."

  36. There was absolutely no reason that I was required to tell the Board anything, and Plaintiff knows this. Udo has nothing to do with the windows, and the Plaintiff knows this. Bill Dzio did tell manager Frank Barry, that I planned to talk to Udo Penther about the wall, when he got back from vacation. This statement is meant solely to discredit and defame me.
  37. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating:
  38. "In a phone call to Mr. Penther to verify Mr. Simpson’s statements, Mr. Penther said that he could not comment on any of this, as Mr. Simpson had sworn him to secrecy. The Board finds this very curious and wished that Mr. Simpson had kept us informed, which might have avoided costly litigation"

  39. My relationship with Mr. Penther is my business. The two frivolous lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff are entirely on the Plaintiff’s shoulders. To blame me, could only be for purposes of discrediting and defaming me.
  40. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating that I complained to the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources. That is true, because work was done in every apartment without complying with the Building Code requirements. Certainly these crimes of the Sapphire Bay Condominiums West and certain owners are serious and result in unsafe apartments. The Plaintiff should be warning each owner that their apartments are unsafe, because their apartments were modified without the proper permits and inspections. The Plaintiff should be warning each owner that their apartments are unsafe, because they were modified by an unlicensed electrician in violation of the law, without permits and without inspections. To suggest that there is something wrong with me for being concerned could only be for purposes of discrediting and defaming me.
  41. Plaintiff’s letter dated May 14, 2004 continues by stating:
  42. "Your Board of Directors has been forced to engage in litigation because of the lack of communication from and the uncooperative nature of one of our owners as well as the derogatory comments concerning the Board, the General Manager and Sapphire Bay Condominiums West that this owner published on a web site. This is unfortunate and your Board regrets having to pursue these actions, but feels that they are necessary for the safety and quiet enjoyment of all owners at SBCW.

    This owner is costing all of us. The Board believes that his web site may have a negative effect on the currently rising property values here at SBCW. In addition, his allegations and actions are taking a great deal of Frank’s time away from the normal, day to day operations Frank has to deal with. We are also incurring legal frees for the necessary litigation we are pursuing. We have reason to believe those fees will be recovered."

  43. These statements could only have been included for purposes of discrediting and defaming me.

 

DEFENDANT’S RELIEF REQUESTED 2nd AMENDED ANSWER

The Defendant adds the following request to his previously submitted 14 (Fourteen) Relief Requests. Request 15 from the 1st Amended Answer is changed from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 to reflect the additional vicious defamation represented by this May 14, 2004 letter to all owners.

    1. Damages, to be paid by the individual members of the Board of Directors personally, in the amount of $10,000,000 for pain and suffering, emotional damage, and reputation damage due to the deliberate, vicious, and unending defamation by Plaintiffs of Defendant and his wife.

GEORGE R. SIMPSON, PROSE

DATED: May ___, 2004 By: ________________________

George R. Simpson

6345 Smith Bay

Sapphire Bay Condominiums West

Unit C-4

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802

Cell Phone: 631-357-9502