Case No. 01 CV 120 DISTRICT COURT, PARK COUTY, COLORADO Court Address: 300 4th Street                 Post Office Box 190                 Fairplay, CO 80440 Phone Number: 719-836-2940 Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant: Northstar Companies International, LLC Northstar Design & Construction, LLC dba Northstar Homes Sales Northstar Construction v. Michael Thomas Meadors Karen Dudnikov PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DENYING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AGAINST BARBARA ROBBINS INDIVIDUALLY                 COMES NOW Barbara A. Robbins, an an individual, pro se, who offers the following as response and memorandum in the above captioned case. Barbara A. Robbins is not a licensed attorney in the State of Colorado, and can therefor not defend the actions of any entity. All responses are the responses of Barbara A. Robbins, as an individual, and as a member on behalf of NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC (hereafter collectively the Plaintiff). Said individual, Barbara A. Robbins prays that this Honorable Court accept this response and see it as sufficient grounds to deny the Defendant's (sic) motion to enter judgment against Barbara A. Robbins, individually, and as grounds wherefore, said Plaintiff would state and aver; BACKGROUND         1. The Defendants entered into agreements with the Plaintiff (sic) limited liability company, NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, for the purchase of their manufactured home.         2. Each of the Defendants knew, or fully believed, at the time that they entered into any agreements that they were dealing with, and contracting with, a limited liability company.         3. Plaintiff, NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, was forced to file a lien against the Defendant (sic) for lack of payment. The lien in question was filed by NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, and signed by Barbara A. Robbins, as manager.         4. The lien was perfected, filed, and the litigation action was started. All actions were performed timely and the lien was in order.         5. No work of any kind was ever performed on behalf of, or for the benefit of, this individual Plaintiff, Barbara Robbins. BACKGROUND INTO LIMITED LIABILITY ERROR         6. Until the spring of 2001 it was a completely understood fact that the Plaintiff company, NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, was a duly registered limited liability company in the State of Colorado, and was organized according to Colorado law.         7. This Plaintiff had a complete and good faith belief that she was acting on behalf of a corporate entity at all times.         8. NorthStar Company, Ltd, the original operating entity of the NorthStar Companies filed the Articles of Organization in March 1996.

At this point in the Memorandum there is inserted into the Memorandum an unreadable, reduced facsimile of what appears to be the paperwork mentioned in the paragraph above.

9. The Articles of Organization were returned by the Secretary of State due to a name conflict, and returned immediately with the suffix 'Ltd' still intact. Note title search from Security Title Guarantee indicating the 'NorthStar Companies International, Ltd., LLC' name was used.

At this point in the Memorandum there is inserted into the Memorandum an unreadable, reduced facsimile of what appears to be the paperwork mentioned in the paragraph above.

10. NorthStar Companies International, Ltd, NorthStar Steel Building Systems International, Ltd, NorthStar Design & Construction, Ltd, and NorthStar Management & Internal Control, Ltd, (copy not available) filed their Articles of organization in April of 1996.

At this point in the Memorandum there is inserted into the Memorandum an unreadable, reduced facsimile of what appears to be the paperwork mentioned in the paragraph above.

11. The NorthStar Companies International, Ltd., office is Woodland Park, received the filed copies of each company and staff members filed the forms in the office file cabinets.         12. Nearly two years later, in February of 1998, the Secretary of State's office wrote to inform of an error with the suffix on the company name, NorthStar Steel Building Systems International, Ltd. The error was received for only one of the companies.

At this point in the Memorandum there is inserted into the Memorandum an unreadable, reduced facsimile of what appears to be the paperwork mentioned in the paragraph above.

13. This individual, Barbara Robbins, responded to the request and changed the name of the company in question.

At this point in the Memorandum there is inserted into the Memorandum an unreadable, reduced facsimile of what appears to be the paperwork mentioned in the paragraph above.

14. NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC was required to re-file with the Secretary of State in April of 2001 because the Defendant, Barbara Robbins discovered that the Articles had not been recorded.

At this point in the Memorandum there is inserted into the Memorandum an unreadable, reduced facsimile of what appears to be the paperwork mentioned in the paragraph above.

15. A recap of the above timeline:

a. The original filing of the Limited Liability Company Articles of Organization was made in May of 1996 along with three other Limited Liability Company filings.         b. All four of the Limited Liability Company filings were returned to the corporate office of record of the limited liability companies in Woodland Park.         c. Three of the four filings were returned filed, even though the incorrect suffix was used instead of the more correct 'LLC' and were sent back 'Filed' by the Secretary of State's office.         d. The fourth filing, NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, was returned for correction because of the erroneously used suffix, and was not filed or corrected by the Secretary of State's office.         e. Office staff of the corporate entity Defendant filed the documents from the Secretary of State, along with the Operating Agreements, without carefully reviewing them.

16. It is reasonable to assume that the office staff that did the filing had no reason to deliberately or maliciously overlook the error, and would be more proper, in fact, to believe that they were filed in good faith, assuming that they were correct and complete. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY PRESUMED CORRECT         17. Implied good faith authority to act as limited liability company is correct in this situation, because given the simplicity of the correction, a reasonable person would believe that if the error were discovered, it would have been corrected.

a. (Definition for clarity). Good Faith - n. A state of mind consisting in (1) honesty in belief or purpose, (2) faithfulness to one's duty or obligation, (3) observance of reasonable commercial standardsof fair dealing in a given trade or business, or (4) absence of intent to defraud or to seek unconscionable advantage.

a. Based on the good faith assumption of proper filings, Federal indentification numbers were secured for all of the above-filed corporate entities as Limited Liability Companies.         b. Federal Form 1065 and Colorado form 106 were filed for each of the corporate entities for each year of operation, as duly authorized Limited Liability Companies.         c. Corporate entity Plaintiff filed for, and obtained, all proper licensing and insurance required for operation as a duly authorized Colorado Limited Liabilty Company.

17. Corporate entity Plaintiff had presumptive authority and good faith belief that they were operating under a properly filed and correct limited liability company organization.

Colorado statues specify that all persons who assume to act as a limited liability company without a good faith belief that they have such authority shall be .. liable for all debts and liabilities incurred.

18. Corporate entity Plaintiff had a good faith belief that said corporate entity had been formed in accordance with Colorado law, and it acted in accordance with that good faith belief.         19. Corporate entity Plaintiff fully believed that it had the authority to act as a Limited Liability Company, even though that authority turned out to be presumptive authority.

a. Presumptive authority (implied authority)is properly used here, because the corporate entity Plaintiff had no reason to presume that an omission or error had occurred in the proper filing and organizing of said corporate entity Plaintiff based upon the other corporate entities bring successfully filed in the same manner, at the same time,; and,         b. Presumptive authority and apparent authority are properly used here because corporate entity Plaintiff prepared and filed all documents required of all limited liability companies, including but not limited to, Federal tax returns, State tax returns, insurance policies and subsequent insurance audits, and bank accounts, for all corporate entities - including corporate entity Plaintiff, with no indication than an oversight or omission had occurred - for a period not less than five years.

20. Defendant's attorney knew that the corporate entity Plaintiff was a bona fide corporate entity, evidenced by the Motion for Entry of Default, signed by Defendant's (sic) attorney on May 23rd, 2002, (well after he had discovered the clerical error in April of 2001) quoted here in part: (Defendant's [sic] attorney was apparently reminding the courts [sic] that the bona fide corporation entity Plaintiff was not able to defend itself without an attorney, and pointed out that the member who signed the Complaint is not an attorney) (beging quote)

1. The Plaintiffs have identified themselves as corporations.         2. No attorney has entered on behlf of said Plaintiffs.         3. The Complaint of Plaintiffs and the Answer to the Counterclaims were both filed by Barbara A. Robbins, an individual who is not a member of the Bar of the State of Colorado nor authorized to practice law. (end quote)

21. In the event that the limited liability company was deemed to be invalid or not properly filed, the entity would be back to its original 'partnership' standing, which is valid for doing business in Colorado. The entity would not default to 'individual' under any circumstances.         22. No business activities, contracts, agreements, or legal claims were ever prepared, presented, or entered into by or on behalf of Barbara A. Robbins, as an individual.         23. All business activities, contracts, agreements, or legal claims were prepared, presented, entered into, and defended by the corporation entity Plaintiff at all times.         24. Because of these, and other, reasons, (sic) it is understood that the limited liability company NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, was operating as a De facto limited liabliity company, which, even though of has been (sic) incompletely formed, still operates as a limited liability company as a result of the fact that all members and managers, in good faith, thought that they were operating the business as a duly formed corporation.         25. NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC was also operating as a limited liability company by estoppel, in that all of the parties involved dealt with the business as if it were a limited liability company, thus prventing those third parties from later holding the individual members individually liable for the operation of the limited liability company. PLAINTIFFS ESTOPPED FROM ACTION DUE TO CONTRACT         26. Barbara A. Robbins, on behalf of the Plaintiff, NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, always explained to future homeowners that there is NO WAY that a completion date can be estimated, due to (among other things) circumstances beyond the control of either party.         27. Plaintiff NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, entered into the agreement with the Defendants with the understanding that the figures included were reasonable estimates, based on the fact that no engineering or sub-surface exploration had yet been done.

a. It is not reasonable to wait until all details are known, since the mortgage company rquires the figures before it will fund the load.         b. It is not reasonable to underestimate the project intentionally, since the funds may not be available from the mortgage company.         c. It was not the practice of the Plaintiffs to intentionally underestimate projects.         d. The practice of estimating costs is customary and routine in the industry.

28. The Defendants have chosen an unreasonable and incredible time period of 'before Thanksgiving' as their claim of what this Plaintiff 'guaranteed'. The project was completed well within any reasonable construction time periods, though no completion date was ever offered, since it was clearly explained that a completion date is impossible to fortell that far in advance.         29. Defendants should all be estopped from proceeding with their fabricated claim that this Plaintiff advised them that their house would be completed by a certain date, because their written contract specifies otherwise.         30. The Project management Agreement, as well as the contract to purchase the factory built home, specifically explain that no date can, or will, be given.

a. Defendants knowingly signed and agreed to the Plaintiff's inability to 'fortell' the completion date of a project not yet started.         b. All written agreements would supercede any verbal or oral agreements alleged by Defendants.

NO WRONGFUL ACTS         31. Piercing the 'corporate' veil, even for a limited liability company, will require that this Honorable Court determine that reason enough exists to hold this individual personally liable for the wrongful acts of the 'corporate entity'. Personal liability, and piercing the corporate veil, is not called for in this instance, since there is no indication, based on evidence, that any wrongful acts were done by the limited liability company in question. The limited liability company suffered a default judgment as a result of its inability to defend itself in court. This Plaintiff asserts that if the facts were known, the Honorable Court would realize that no wrongful acts were done, and in support, offers the following: RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS         1. Defendant (sic) has no evidence or documentation to support any allegations or claims made. All claims are refuted by contract. BACKGROUND DATA IS INACCURATE (General)

a. 2. Denied. Douglas E. and Barbara A. Robbins were husband and wife, and partners in the limited liability company (or by default, the partnership) know as NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC.         b. 3, Denied. NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC was a no time (sic) trade name, , but was rather a legal entity doing a legal business in this state.         c. 4. Denied. NorthStar Home Sales and NorthStar Construction were never d/b/a's as alleged, but were rather slang terms commonly used to refer to the entity known as NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC. No 'mere instrumentality' is correct.         d. 5. Denied. No 'mere alter egos' exist here, as clearly evidenced by the operation of the business entity in question for such a long time period. There was at no time the idea that any customer or client was ever working with an individual, but rather a corporate (or partnership) entity.         e. 6. Denied. Defendant is not stating the details of his transaction correctly.         f. 7. Denied. Craig Davis was never an employee of either 'Robbins', but was a sub-contractor working with NorthStar Companies International, LLC, a duly registered and correctly filed limited liability company in this state, as well as being a licensed real estate agent working on a sub-contractor basis.         g. 8. Denied. Sheery Beeler worked as an employee of NorthStar Companies International, LLC, a duly registered and correctly filed limited liability company in this state.         h. 9. Denied. The agreement entered into clearly and distinctly outline the inability to estimate a project completion date. No claim was made by the Plaintiff with reference the free gasoline offer, because the offer was not made by the Plaintiff entity.         i. 10. Denied. Defendants entered into the agreement for their home with all details of the transaction in writing, specifying no verbal or 'side' deals, and with no influence from any other sources. This Plaintiff cannot testify to their state of mind, however, no allegations were made to the Defendants that could be used to make a decision, other than those in the written agreements.         j. 11. Denied. The Project Manager Agreement specifically outlined the provision in the event that the costs went over their estimates. No reasonable person would come to the reasonable conclusion that the outrageous claims stated by the Defendants as being made by the Plaintiff were made. No refund could possibly been offered or even suggested, since the final figures were to go to the mortgage lender, and that figure would be the borrowed amount of the mortgage. No prepayment was made: therfore, no refund would be possible.         k. 12. Denied. Defendant entered into an agreement to purchase and construct their home with the corporate entity, NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC.

NO FRAUDULENT ACTS WERE COMMITTED (1st Claim For Relief)         2. No fraud exists in this case. The Defendants have grossly misrepresented the material facts of this case in an attempt to paint them as fraudulent, which they clearly are not.

a. 14. Denied. No false statements were made to the Plaintiff. The written agreements clearly stated the terms and conditions, as well as the details, of the entire project. No reliance on any verbal statements would be reasonable, because the written statements would supercede them.         b. 15. Denied. All amounts indicated as being 'paid' were either already paid or were ready to pay upon receipt of the Defendants construction loan 'draw'. No arrangements had been made by which the Plaintiff would be funding the the Defendants (sic) home construction; therefore, it is reasonable and customary to prepare the payments to sub-contractors and pay them upon receipt of the draw funds. No outstanding bills were left for this Defendant.

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT EXISTS (2nd Claim For Relief)         3. No Breach of Contract exists in this case. All portions of the written agreement between the parties were upheld by the corporate entity Plaintiff. Defendants have quoted several portions of the written agreement, but with no mention of what they deem a violation.

a. 17. Denied. No oral (verbal) agreements are considered valid or enforceable; therefore, no oral (verbal) agreements were ever entered into by the Plaintiff, as a rule of practice.         b. 17i, ii, iii. Inaccurate. Project manager was Barbara Robbins, as general Contractor, who completed all required duties outlined specifically in the written agreement(s).         c. 18. Merely quoting the agreement, no allegations are contained within this item, and no specific claim that the Plaintiff has violated any provisions of the agreement is made.         d. 19i, ii, iii. Merely qouting the agreement made with the lender. No allegations are contained within this item, and no specific claim that the Plaintiff has violated any provisions of the agreement is made.         e. 20. Accepted, as stating a kinown fact.         f. 21. Denied. No breach of contract is even specified, and none occurred.         g. 22. Denied. No breach of fiduciary duty of any kind exists.

NO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY EXISTS (3rd Claim For Relief)         4. No brach of fiduciary duty exists in this case. At all times, the corporate entity Plaintiff acted in the Defendants (sic) best interest.

a. 24. Denied as being inaccurate. All right to select, coordinate and pay the suncontractors, etc., was reserved to the corporate entity Plaintiff, NorthStar Design & Construcion, LLC, through its project manager, Barbara Robbins. The written agreement did not include any provisions for the installation or connection of the solar power.         b. 25. No issue is stated to defend against.         c. 26. Denied. No breach of fiduciary duty has been stated for specified.         d. 27. Denied. No breach of fisuciary duty of any kind exists.

NO VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OCCURRED         5. No violations of the Colorado Consumer protection act exist in this case. The allegations made by the Defendant are knowingly false and were false when they were made. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act was designed to protect consumers from devious practices of businesses. No such practices exist with the corporate entity Plaintiff, regardless of the misrepresentations of the Defendants.

a. 29a.i. Denied. The Defendants forced the attendant at the Florissant Total station (see attached) to backdate the request for the gas coupon. They knowingly misrepresented themselves to the clerk. They brought the coupon in for redemption knowing it was falsely obtained and invalid.         b. 29a.ii. Denied. No completion date was ever specified, and was contractually explained as being impossible to give.         c. 29a.iii. The Defendants free 27" television set and the VCR were in the back of the corporate entity Plaintiff representative, Barbara Robbins, on the day of closing. The items were to be handed to the Defendants upon closing of their mortgage, as usual, though no closing happened.         d. 29a.iv. Denied. No claim of a refund was ever made. The final costs were to be delivered to the mortgage lender as the final mortgage amount. No prepayment was made; therefore, no refund would be possible.         e. 29a.v. Denied. The eyebrow dormer is on the Defendants (sic) home.         f. 29b. Denied. Plaintiff at no time ever advertised goods and/or services with the intent not to sell those goods and services as advertised.         g. 29c. Denied. Plaintiff at no time ever employed 'bait and switch' advertising. Pnce estimated and products were chosen and accepted, the documents were signed by the buyer to eliminate any confusion at a later date. No higher priced goods or services were ever substituted unless no price change occurred.         h. 29d. Denied. No completion date of any kind was ever stated, promised, eluded to, mentioned, or hinted at; however, Corporate entity Plaintiff constructed the Defendant's home within a reasonable period of time nonetheless, the costs were within 1.5% of the contract price, and the home was constructed in accordance with all reglations, codes, and plans.         i. 30. Denied. There were no instances of failing to disclose anything to the Defendant.         j. 31. Denied. All required licenses, permits, and certificated were obtained. The final certificate of occupancy was difficult to obtain by the Plaintiff because of the actions of the Defendant, but a temporary certificate of occupancy was ontained and the Defendant not has (sic) the needed certificate of occupancy. All other requirements were met.         k. 32. Denied. No violation of the Colorado Consumer protection Act has occurred.         l. 33. Denied. No violation of the Colorado Consumer protection Act has occurred, so no monetary damages can exist.

RELEASE OF LIEN WAS INCORRECT (5th Claim For Relief)         6. The Plaintiff legally filed and recorded a lien on the Defendant's property. This Honorable Court released that lien based upon fraudulent circumstances and claims made by the Defendants and their attorney. Misrepresentation and false statements were made, and relied upon, to the damage of the Plaintiff.

a. 35. Defendant entered into a project management agreement with the Plaintiff corporate entity, NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, which specified costs and paymets.         b. 36. Denied. Defendants hired the corporate entity Plaintiff as a General Contractor for the project. The written description of the job specifically outlined work well beyond the scope of physically being at the jobsite. Numerous final documents, final reconsiliations, loan documents, inspection documents, and the finalization still existed. These services are referred to as 'superintendence', performed by a 'superintendent', or 'project manager'. The statute clearly outlines the provisions for work such as this in Bushman Constr. Co v. Air Force Academy Hous., Inc. 327 F.2d 481 (10th Cir 1964) and again in Pitschke v. Pope 20 Colo App. 328, 78 P.1077 (1904).         c. 37. Admitted.         d. 38. Denied. There is no paragraph b2 to reference; however, six months had not passed since the final work on the project. Defendants state in their own counterclaim, line 36, that work was done up to January 9, 2001, and even though this Plaintiff worked on the project past that date, the 6-month back-date is December 28, 2000. The lien was in full force and effect until released.         e. 39. Denied. The lien was for less than $9,000 and the contract price for the construction was in excess of $51,000, and for the entire project was more than $120,000. The lien was clearly not in excess of the contract price. The lien filed by the Plaintiff was valid, perfected, and should be in full force and effect.         f. 40. Admitted.         g. 41. Denied. NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, though determined later to be not a fully formed limited liability company, defaulted to a valid Colorado Partnership. The name of the company was still correct and recorded as such. The corporate entity Plaintiff met the definition of being a 'person' according to the statute.         h. 42. Denied. The above mentioned lien, were it not for the release by this Honorable Court as a result of the 'forced' default of the Plaintiff, would still be in full force and effect, or collected upon.         i. 89?. Denied. Plaintiff submitted a draw request for the final grade work done. The final grade work, though specified as 'final grade work' was listed in the driveway column because the funds existed to pay it. No reasonable person would have constructed a driveway in December due to the pending thaw, and no reasonable person would have completed the driveway prior to the construction. No driveway was invoiced to Defendants, and placing the final grade work in the driveway column was a matter of budgeting. No effect to the overall figures took place as a result of that placement.         k. 91. Denied. The lien in question clearly specifies the name of the person owed for the labor performed for the Defendant, which would be the Plaintiff corporate entity, NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, as the General Contractor. It is not necessary for the general contractor to name each subcontractor hired, or to list the amount owed to each. (FCC Constr., Inc. v. Casino Creek Holdings, 916 F.2d 547 (Colo App 1984)         l. 92. Denied. No failure to perform exists. The lien should still be in full force and effect. No actions invalidating the lien have occurred.

7. Plaintiff has stated and shown beyond a reasonable doubt that no instance of fraud, breach of contract or fiduciary duty, or any other violations have occurred. Defendant's (sic) have made no valid claims of wrongdoing against the corporate entity Plaintiff. Defendant's (sic) attorney made statements that he knew were false at the time that he made them, namely that the Plaintiff was not legally able to defend itself without benefit of counsel, which the Plaintiff relied upon to their damage. The Defendant's (sic) attorney misrepresented the material facts in this case to the detriment of the Plaintiff. Were it not for these statements, the corporate entity Plaintiff would have been allowed to continue with the defense of the valid lien, and present these facts to the Honorable Court. INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY INAPPROPRIATE         1. No reasonable grounds exist for the entry of judgment against the corporate enttity NorthStar Design & Construction, LLC, or against Barbara A. Robbins, individually.         2. Plaintiff, Barbara A. Robbins, did respond to all court documents. It was her belief that all responses had been made.         3. When this case was moved to District Court, the Plaintiff was under the impression, as a result of counsel, admonition, and written statements, that no further defense could be done by her individually.         4. No work was ever done by the Plaintiff as an individual.         5. Plaintiff had a complete and good faith belief that she was acting on behalf of a corporate entity at all times.         6. No business activities, contracts, agreements, or legal claims were ever prepared, presented, or entered into by or on behalf of Barbara A. Robbins, as an individual.         7. All business activities, contracts, agreements, legal claims and liens were prepared, presented, entered into, and defended by the corporate entity Plaintiff at all tmes.         8. Plaintiff Barbara Robbins has suffered immeasurable loss and damages as a result of these Defendants, and is near total financial ruin.

a. This Plaintiff has lost her personal residence to foreclosure.         b. This Plaintiff has lost her source of income and suffered tremendous damage to her career as a result of the Defendants (sic) actions.         c. Plaintiff lost, to foreclosure or repossession, every major asset formerly held.         d. The actions of the Defendats contributed to the breakup of this Plaintiff nearly 10 year marriage.         e. The actions of the Defendants contributed to the Plaintiff's children election to leave the area because they could not deal with the gross fabrications and rumors started and fed by said Defendants.

9. It is unconscionable that the Defendants (sic) attorney be allowed to consider that this corporate entity Plaintiff is a corporate entity when that best suits their needs, and subsequently be allowed to consider that same corporate entity Plaintiff an individual when that suits them better.         10. It is unconscionable to consider entering said judgment against this individual when, given the chance to present the facts, the likelihood existsthat no judgment would have been entered against sadi corporate entity Plaintiff in the first place, though the Plaintiff is not allowed to defend said corporate entity.         11. It is unconscionable and unconstitutional to deny this individual, Barbara A. Robbins, the right to defend herself against any and all charges.         12. No justice will be served by entering a judgment against this Plaintiff, Barbara A. Robbins. Summary         I hope and pray that this Honorable Court will take the tremendous amount of time and effort that I am pleading from you, and review these documents. I trust that a careful review of these documents will indicate to you that first and formost, no wrongful act were ever shown. I trust that the review will indicate to you that this corporate entity was indeed a functioning limited liability company, organized according to Colorado law, and while it is probably a 'de facto' limited liability company, it should legally still afford the same liability protection to this individual. In addition, in the event that you find that the limited liability company, through my failure to properly supervise my former staff, was invalid, the default would be a Colorado partnership, NOT an individual. While the liability protection would not be afforded, the entirt would still exist. Finally, I trust that the review will indicate to you that the Defendants involved in this action have a signed agreement refuting each of their claims - which should estop them from any action against the limited liabilit company, but clearly estop them from placing any liability on this individual, Barbara Robbins.         WHEREFORE, Barbara A. Robbins, an individual, pro se, prays that this Honorable Court will see the gross injustice that the Defendants are attempting to engage in, and that this Plaintiff has been forced to endure at the hand of these Defendants, and moves this Honorable Court to deny the Motion to Enter Judgment against Barbara A. Robbins individually. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of February, 2004. Signed Barbara A. Robbins

Note: this was filed March 1, 2004, with the Court. Included were eleven pages of documents, in no apparent order, with no notations, designations, or references from the Memorandum. It appears Babs intended the Court to hold the documents to the forhead, like Carnac, and devine their purpose.