Bernie sent us a certified letter the other day…

and made allegations against us in his letter, in regards to his first allegation:

1. You have falsely and fraudulently stated Bernard Seidling has committed fraud against me.

1. FINDING OF FACT CASE NO. 09 SC 1061

He filed a frivolous small claims lawsuit against me in Dane County Wisconsin, listing my address as 105 Weybridge Drive, Sun Prairie, WI, when I never lived there or owned that property. Knowing full well that I would not be there to answer the summons served on me, so hence he would win a default judgment against me for $5,000. So he LIED about where I lived to SWINDLE money out of me that he had no right to. He also MISREPRESENTED himself to the courts in Madison of his identity and called himself “DD Enterprises” one of his many alter egos. Or also known as.

What is fraud: In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of

money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g., in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.

What is the definition of alias or also known as: Noun 1. alias - a name that has been assumed temporarily assumed name, false name - a language unit by which a person or thing is known; "his name really is George Washington"; "those are two names for the same thing" Adv. 1. alias - as known or named at another time or place; "Mr. Smith, alias Mr. Lafayette" a.k.a., also known as

In regards to Bernard Seidlings second allegation.

2. You have falsely and fraudulently stated in a civil matter, which was between yourself and Four Star Properties, Inc., that the plaintiff was Four Star Properties, Inc., AKA Bernard Seidling.

Registrant:

Domains By Proxy, LLC

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)

Domain Name: BERNARD-SEIDLING-FOUR-STAR-PROPERTIES.COM

Domain servers in listed order:

NS65.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

NS66.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

No. 00-2165 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III

LYNDA M. BOSER LARSON AND STEVEN G. LARSON,

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V.

BERNARD SEIDLING, FOUR STAR PROPERTIES,

SEIDLING TRUST AND CHRISTINE SEIDLING

RESOLUTION NO. 77

WHEREAS, Four Star Properties, Incorporated, and Bernard Seidling filed a claim on May 4,

2004, with the County Clerk’s Office against Dunn County in the amount of $35,000.00. Said claim relates to an alleged occurrence on April 15, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the Committee on Administration has reviewed said claim and recommends denial.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Dunn County Board of Supervisors denies

the claim of Four Star Properties, Incorporated, and Bernard Seidling and direct the Administrative Coordinator to issue a notice of formal disallowance to the claimant.

Dated this 21st day of July, 2004, at Menomonie, Wisconsin.

ADOPTED ON: July 21, 2004

OFFERED BY THE COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION:

Steven Rasmussen, Chair

Francis Eiseth

Stanley Anderson

ATTEST: Lorraine Hartung, County Clerk

In regards to Bernard's allegation number three:

3. You have falsely and fraudulently stated or represented that Bernard Seidling is a liar and has committed perjury.

FINDING OF FACT CASE NO. 04 CV 460

He advertised GREAT BUILDING SITE which has already been perked. It was perked, but it failed to be suitable for a development or a mound system, so the court deemed this as misrepresentation, it did not have a Certified Survey Map, he could not sell us the lot because it was not legally zoned by the county, the parcel description did not include an easement, it was land locked. Our lot was finally surveyed in 2003, and our 5-acre parcel lot description does not match the dimensions of the CSM.

He LIED under oath that he never advertised on the internet where we found the ad. We were able to produce the printed ad from the internet as exhibit 14 in court.

What is perjury? Perjury statutes in many states make it a crime to knowingly lie after taking an oath to tell the truth, such as when testifying in court or communicating through certain legal documents. The falsehood must usually be material to the matter at issue, though perjury can also be committed by simply signing a document with the knowledge that it contains false assertions. For example, while completing a sworn affidavit during child support proceedings in family court, Dan purposefully understates his monthly income by $2000, signs the document, and files it with the judge's clerk.

In regards to allegation number four.

4. You have falsely and fraudulently stated numerous other misrepresentations on the internet which are libelous and actionable.

Please Refer back to numbers 1 , 2 and 3 to support number 4.

What is Libel? Libel is a false, malicious statement published in mainstream media (i.e. on the internet, in a magazine, etc.). (If the defamatory statements are only spoken, they are called "slander".) It is somewhat synonymous to defamation. Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

I find nothing which is false or fraudulent on any of the documents which have been posted. In regards to bernard's summation of numerous other misrepresentations, I cannot respond to that which I know not of. If bernard's reputation has been damaged it is because of his repeated misrepresentations and outright lying to good, honest, hard working people in order to defraud them of their hard earned money. This was done so he and his wife can live the life of luxury in the Florida Keys and all around this Great Country of Ours at their expense. These posting are not being done to hurt bernard and his wife so much as to warn others, not to make the same mistake I and many others have made. Do not get into a deal with Bernard without first having the land you are interested in buying researched by a title company, and the document you are signing looked over by a lawyer.

Caveat emptor [Latin, Let the buyer beware.] A warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he or she is buying are "as is," or subject to all defects.

When a sale is subject to this warning the purchaser assumes the risk that the product might be either defective or unsuitable to his or her needs.

This rule is not designed to shield sellers who engage in Fraud or bad faith dealing by making false or misleading representations about the quality or condition of a particular product. It merely summarizes the concept that a purchaser must examine, judge, and test a product considered for purchase himself or herself.

The modern trend in laws protecting consumers, however, has minimized the importance of this rule. Although the buyer is still required to make a reasonable inspection of goods upon purchase, increased responsibilities have been placed upon the seller, and the doctrine of caveat venditor (Latin for "let the seller beware") has become more prevalent. Generally, there is a legal presumption that a seller makes certain warranties unless the buyer and the seller agree otherwise. One such Warranty is the Implied Warranty of merchantability. If a person buys soap, for example, there is an implied warranty that it will clean; if a person buys skis, there is an implied warranty that they will be safe to use on the slopes.

A seller who is in the business of regularly selling a particular type of goods has still greater responsibilities in dealing with an average customer. A person purchasing antiques from an antique dealer, or jewelry from a jeweler, is justified in his or her reliance on the expertise of the seller.

If both the buyer and the seller are negotiating from equal bargaining positions, however, the doctrine of caveat emptor would apply.