Letter to Jim Diedrich's (Summit Ridge Construction) Trial Attorney
Angela Harmon-Kuhl at Kopka, Pinkus, Dolin and Eads
I'm writing in response to your facsimile dated June 20, 2006.
Yes, I agreed to let Jim bring in someone under your direct order; however, after getting a legal opinion of your tactics, I learned that I wasn't legally obligated to do what you demanded. Moreover, I haven't been able to find any laws supporting why I had to release "every" floor-related document I have in my possession to you. There is no court filing or legal precedent, so why did I have to comply? I don't appreciate being harassed with a multitude of law suits, especially when I'm the one seeking justice. I've contacted the Bar and consulted with a recommended attorney about the way you're conducting matters with me.
Your most recent voicemail alarms me (as well as others). I don't know why you often present things in absolute terms. It's true you can file motions, assuming Jim wants to pay you to do it, but that doesn't mean you'll always get the projected trumped-up outcome. Many of the legal claims you badgered me with, other attorneys suggested I simply laugh off. And I'm under no legal obligation to provide you with the date and time the News (or anyone else) may arrive to see my floor.
I don't understand why you clearly threatened me with a slander case simply for mentioning I may seek outside help from someone such as Bill Spencer. FYI, Monday's Detroit News featured a story entitled "Got a Problem? Bill's your man." It outlined how Bill Spencer leads a team in the pursuit of righting wrongs for consumers. The article stated that $814,728 was retrieved; therefore, his approach must be working. I don't think Bill would be so popular if people seeking his help were being sued. Additionally, there are more Web Blogs than anyone can possibly count; demonstrating slander, libel and defamation of character are very difficult to prove in a court of law.
In addition, it was Jim's candid comments that led me to abruptly cancel the job with George and fire Art mid stream. I held Jim as a valuable source of information since he was an expert with many years' experience.
To this day, I still don't understand why an expert such as Jim needs to hire an expert unless his intention is to force me into court. Jim clearly acknowledged his mistake in front of a witness and said normally he'd sand the cracks out before finishing the floor; however, since my hardwood floor was pre-finished he'd have to replace the boards. He told me that he'd be back out within a week's time to repair the damage. A week later and without warning, he changed his mind.
I feel that if Jim's true intensions were to repair my floor, he would have done so months ago. If I were him, the first thing I'd have done was repair what I could in order to please the customer; however, Jim took a different approach.
As you know, in order to repair my floor, I have to solicit estimates from other installers. Countless flooring experts will see my floor firsthand and have an opportunity to read the reports. Within a week's time and with the help of a database, I'll have plenty of estimates for repairing the more than two-dozen cracked boards. And finally, my wife and I can get our house back in order and admire our Lauzon floor.
Neither you nor Jim can prevent me from exercising my legal right to repair my floor and present the truth to others.